verify_many

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool returns verdicts per address and mentions flag types. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or the effect of the 'deep' parameter beyond schema description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and output; the second provides usage context and examples of flags.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is incomplete regarding the output structure (what does a verdict look like?) and lacks details on error states, rate limits, or prerequisites. For a batch tool, these are important for correct agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the batch context, the purpose of verification (flagging risky addresses), and elaborating on the 'deep' parameter as a live SMTP probe, which is not in the schema description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool verifies a batch of email addresses (e.g., mailing list) and returns one verdict per address. It explicitly distinguishes from the single-verify sibling tool verify_email by focusing on batch processing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear use case: 'clean a list before a campaign' and describes what flags are returned (invalid, disposable, role-based, risky). It implies when not to use (single addresses) but does not explicitly exclude or mention alternatives beyond the sibling name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.