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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful access-related behavior: authentication is required, and start_login will not open this tool. However, it does not disclose the lifecycle effect of creating a request—whether it is asynchronous, whether user action is required afterward, or what the response contains—so transparency is only partial.

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 front-loaded with purpose and stays tight. The first paragraph states the core behavior, and the second delivers actionable auth guidance plus a non-obvious warning. No sentence is wasted, and it avoids repeating schema details.

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 10-parameter nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is functional but not fully complete. It covers authentication and asset scope well, and the rich schema covers parameters, but it doesn't describe the response shape, the asynchronous verification flow, or how redirect/webhook behavior fits into the overall request lifecycle. These gaps are noticeable but not fatal.

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 all parameters including assets, expires_in, partial_ok, action_type, callback_url, redirect_url, and reference_id. The description only adds the high-level 'multi-asset in a single flow' framing, which doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb+object: 'Create a multi-asset verification request' and enumerates the supported asset types. This clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from single-purpose alternatives like create_verification or start_login without needing to open the schema.

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 ACCESS section gives an explicit prerequisite and call sequence: a Proof account is required, the client must authenticate via /mcp, then call the tool again. It also warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which prevents a common misuse. It doesn't name alternative request-creation tools, but the context is still clear.

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