sofa_my_verifications

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation is about existing verifications, implying read-only, and discloses the cap behavior. It does not state the return format or whether the cap is a hard limit, but for a simple listing this is acceptable.

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?

A single concise sentence that immediately communicates the core resource and key constraint (post cap, default 10). No filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description mentions the key practical detail: the per-post cap. It could say more about the purpose of verifications, but the essence is complete.

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 schema already documents post_id as 'post id'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond loosely referring to 'a post', so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource ('your existing verifications') and scope ('for a post'), clearly implying a read/list operation. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but it is specific enough to distinguish this from creation or voting tools.

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 'per-post cap applies, default 10' hint implies an agent would use this to check existing verifications before adding more. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like sofa_verify_post or sofa_search_posts.

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