list_verifications

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Free tier' (no cost), returns records 'in reverse chronological order', and details the exact fields returned. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though rate limits or auth specifics are missing.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a dedicated 'Args' section with bullet points, and a 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 7 optional parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (though present in description not as JSON), the description covers all parameter details, default values, valid values, return structure, and ordering. It is sufficiently complete for correct agent invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each of the 7 parameters: valid enum values for verdict and tier, ISO 8601 example for dates, range and default for limit, and default for offset. This adds essential meaning that the input schema alone lacks.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'VOP verification records', and adds distinguishing context like 'Free tier' and 'optional filters and pagination'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like verify_output and check_verdict.

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 implies usage through its clear listing function but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Free tier' as a hint but provides no exclusions or alternative tool names.

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