list_verification_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns paginated results, supports optional filters, and has an authentication prerequisite. It does not describe ordering, ownership scope, default page/limit behavior, or response structure.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by a useful ACCESS warning. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 gives enough to attempt the call: access setup, filters, and pagination awareness. However, without an output schema and without distinguishing this tool from nearby list-related siblings, an agent may not be certain it selected the correct tool or know what the response shape will be.

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 schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only generic language about 'optional filters' and paginated results, without adding meaning beyond the schema.

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') and resource ('verification requests'), and adds that results are paginated with optional filters. It is clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_verifications, list_incoming_requests, or list_my_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 ACCESS block provides clear operational guidance: a Proof account and PROOF_API_KEY are required, a server restart is needed, and start_login does not open this tool. This is a clear when-not, but it does not mention alternative list tools or when to prefer one over another.

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