list_verification_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are paginated, and the tool is gated behind an API-key/account prerequisite rather than the login flow. It does not describe ordering or result size defaults, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded sentences followed by a clearly separated ACCESS note. Nothing is padded, though the ACCESS phrasing ('call this tool again') is slightly redundant.

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 read-only, filterable list tool with a fully documented schema and an explicit auth prerequisite, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The main remaining gap is that it never clarifies how this listing differs from the sibling request-listing tools.

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 description coverage is 100% and all four parameters (page, limit, status, reference_id) are documented in the schema, including a detailed enum explanation for status. The description contributes nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List verification requests') and adds that filters are optional and results are paginated. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like list_verifications, list_my_requests, or list_incoming_requests, leaving the agent to guess which list it wants.

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 ACCESS paragraph gives a real prerequisite (needs a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY set, server restart, and explicitly that start_login does not unlock it) and states filters are optional, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over the many other request-listing siblings.

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