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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which frames the write-but-non-destructive nature. The description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context the annotations lack: the authentication/access requirement and the fact that start_login will not unlock this tool. It says nothing about side effects (what request records are created, whether requests are cancellable), so with annotations carrying part of the load a 3 is right.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clearly labelled ACCESS block. No filler, though the purpose sentence and the asset-type list have some redundancy.

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 tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the access model well and the schema covers inputs fully. It omits anything about the return value (request ID, status handle) and how the created request is later consumed — e.g., get_verification_request or wait_for_verification — which an agent needs to complete the workflow.

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% and every parameter — assets, expires_in, partial_ok, action_type, callback_url, proof_expiry_days, etc. — is self-documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a multi-asset verification request') and enumerates the asset types it handles, which distinguishes it from single-asset tools like create_verification. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from the very similarly named sibling create_multi_channel_verification, leaving the agent to guess between the two.

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 a real usage prerequisite — a Proof account is required and the client must authenticate first, plus a useful exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). But it gives no guidance on when to choose this over create_verification or create_multi_channel_verification, which is the key routing decision implied by the sibling set.

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