list_revoked_proofs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses two non-obvious behavioral traits: a 5-minute cache lifetime and a 1-hour offline signature verifiability window. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return value, with caching semantics trailing. Every sentence earns its place, though the final clause about offline verifiability is slightly dense and would read better split out.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden itself ('signed list of all revoked proof IDs') and adds caching/offline behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description correctly adds no parameter detail. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get the revocation list') and immediately clarifies the return value ('a signed list of all revoked proof IDs') and its context ('for offline proof validation'). This cleanly separates it from the mutation sibling revoke_proof and the status reader get_proof_status.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance on reuse: cache the fetched list for up to 5 minutes and re-fetch to observe new revocations. However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so routing guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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