list_incoming_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the access requirement (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, or start_login session), and 'List' implies a non-destructive read. It does not mention return shape, pagination, or whether only pending requests are returned, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 short sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the ACCESS prerequisite clearly separated. It is efficient, though the authentication sentence is slightly verbose and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

For a zero-argument list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and access. However, it leaves important context unstated: how this tool relates to list_verification_requests and list_my_requests, what an 'incoming verification request' includes, and what the response contains. This is a minimum-viable description with clear gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is complete (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description does not need to document parameter syntax or semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('incoming verification requests') and a clear scope: only requests where the authenticated user is the subject. This scope distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_verification_requests and list_my_requests without needing to open schemas.

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 purpose sentence implies when to use the tool, and the ACCESS block gives prerequisites, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions versus sibling tools like list_verification_requests or list_my_requests. The only usage guidance is about authentication setup, not selection among alternatives.

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