list_unverified_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that no API key is needed, which is valuable auth context not present in annotations. It also reinforces the read-only nature with 'public read.' No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences. The first states the core purpose immediately, and the second adds auth context and pairing suggestions. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. Excellent structure.

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 that annotations cover read-only and open-world hints, and the schema fully documents parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, auth requirements, and the moderation workflow. There is no output schema, so return details are not required. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention pagination behavior, but the schema's offset description already covers next_offset.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (game, limit, offset), each with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool lists 'a game's runs awaiting verification — the moderation queue.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this from the general list_runs sibling by focusing on unverified runs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_runs, so it loses a point for not naming the alternative, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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 notes that it's 'a public read (no API key needed)' and suggests pairing with verify_run/reject_run to clear the queue. This gives clear context for when to use it (moderation workflow). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_runs, but the intended use case is clear.

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