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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the authentication prerequisite and session dependency, which is useful, but it does not describe the side effects of creation, such as whether the request is cancellable, how it is delivered to the other user, or what happens after submission.

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?

Two succinct sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded)Skip, and the ACCESS note is directly actionable for an agent that may hit an auth wall on the first call.

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?

The description does not explain how the 'other user' is addressed, given that the schema has no recipient identifier parameter. It also does not clarify the post-creation flow (e.g., sharing a link, claim step, cancellation), and there is no output schema to compensate. For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 already documents all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a general sense that 'assets' refers to what is requested, which does not go beyond the schema.

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 action (create a new verification request) and the resource (asking another user to share verified assets). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like create_verification_request, relying mostly on the word 'user' in the name.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: requires a Proof account, and tells the agent exactly how to authenticate if it is not yet authenticated (via start_login). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top rung.

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