Get Verification History Entry

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotation: it states that results are scoped to the authenticated user's own history, that it never reveals verification methods or backend internals, and that it includes a fallback message. This fully informs the agent about what the tool does and does not expose.

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 four sentences long, well-structured, and free of unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage context, the third describes fallback behavior, and a separate paragraph clearly defines scope. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers purpose, usage, scope, privacy, and fallback behavior. It does not explicitly describe the return format or structure of the 'detailed info', which is a minor gap. However, overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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 single parameter 'email' has a clear schema description, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional semantics or formatting guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 starts with 'Look up detailed info about a past verification of a specific email address', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'verify_emails' by focusing on history lookup, not verification execution. The mention of a fallback message when no prior verification exists further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Useful when a user asks about a previous verification result.' It also provides context on what happens if no prior verification exists (suggests running verify_emails). However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or name alternative tools beyond that single note, leaving some implicit guidance.

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