List revoked credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds "Free" cost context and the default 30-day window, which is thin but useful; it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering.

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?

Three tight fragments, front-loaded with cost, then purpose, then use case. No padding or redundancy.

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 simple, single-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and an open-world hint, the description supplies purpose, default window, and audience. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the single `since` parameter is already documented with its ISO 8601 format and 30-day default. The description restates the default but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (list) and resource (revoked credentials) scoped by a date. It is naturally distinct from the sibling verify/mandate/sign tools, though it never explicitly names an alternative. Clear purpose with no sibling callout.

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?

"For verifiers that cache credentials and want to drop revoked ones" clearly identifies the intended caller and scenario. It gives context without naming alternatives or exclusions, which fits the 4 bar.

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