list_my_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does address authentication: it requires a Proof account and explains the API key or start_login session path. It also signals that a session must be opened before the tool will work. It does not mention side-effect safety or result behavior, but 'List' and the scoping provide sufficient context.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the access note is separated into a compact second block. No irrelevant detail.

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 simple zero-parameter list operation, the description covers what it returns (verification requests), who they belong to (the authenticated user), and the auth prerequisite. No critical gap for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline for 0-param tools applies.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and the scoped resource 'verification requests created by the authenticated user.' The authenticated-user qualifier distinguishes it from broader siblings like list_verification_requests and list_incoming_requests.

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 implies its usage via the 'created by the authenticated user' scope, and the ACCESS note explains the prerequisite authentication state. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is mostly implied.

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