List required verifications

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema: the tool derives verifications from household facts (e.g., earned income implies pay stubs, shelter costs imply a lease) and states the authorization requirement ('Requires the caseworker scope'). It does not explicitly mention read-only status or error behavior, but the 'List' verb and output schema mitigate this.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and zero redundant or filler content. Examples are concise and illustrate behavior effectively. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool has a complex nested household schema and an output schema, which reduces the need for the description to explain return values. The description covers the core purpose, derivation logic, and a permission constraint, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The only notable gap is parameter guidance for 'program', but overall context is solid.

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 description adds some semantic value by linking household facts (earned income, shelter costs) to expected verifications, which helps an agent understand how the household parameter is used. However, it does not describe the 'program' parameter's allowed values or format, and the schema description coverage for top-level parameters is 0%, leaving the program field ambiguous. The household structure is well-documented in the schema, so the description's contribution is moderate.

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 a clear resource ('the documents a caseworker must verify to confirm SNAP eligibility for a household'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on documents/verifications rather than program screening, eligibility checking, or policy lookup.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when needing required verifications for a SNAP household based on presented facts) and includes an exclusion ('Requires the caseworker scope'). It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to choose it.

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