list_verifications

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 does add useful context: the operation returns paginated results and requires prior API key setup. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, describe the response structure, or mention ordering/defaults, leaving notable gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by relevant access instructions. Every sentence adds information without redundancy, though the access block is slightly procedural and could be tightened.

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 covers access prerequisites and mentions pagination, but with no output schema it does not describe the response format or default pagination behavior. Given the high number of sibling tools and the need to distinguish this operation, a bit more context about what a 'verification' is would improve completeness.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, and the description simply refers to them as 'optional filters'. It does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List verifications' with 'optional filters'. It is unambiguous about the core action, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_verification_requests or list_verified_users, making the exact meaning of 'verifications' slightly dependent on context.

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 gives explicit access guidance: a Proof account is required, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, and the server must be restarted before retrying. It also warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which is a clear when-not. It does not compare against alternative list tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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