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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and clarifies that start_login won't open the tool, which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on missing IDs, or any rate limits – though the word 'Get' implies a read. It adds some behavioral context but not deep transparency.

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 paragraphs: a concise purpose sentence and a focused access note. It is front-loaded with the main action and keeps the access instruction separate. No redundant phrasing; each sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description names what it returns (type, value, status, verification timestamps). It also covers the access prerequisite and the start_login caveat. Minor gaps exist – error behavior for non-verified or nonexistent IDs isn't mentioned – but for a single-get tool this is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% (id is described as 'Asset ID'). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning – it refers to 'by ID' but doesn't elaborate on ID format, required type, or validation rules. The schema already documents the parameter sufficiently, so the description doesn't compensate beyond the baseline.

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 'Get a single verified asset by ID' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from list_assets (list vs single) and other get_* tools by asset resource, but it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or contrast with a sibling. The term 'verified' adds precision.

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 provides actionable context: requires a Proof account, how to authenticate, and explicitly warns that start_login does not open this tool. However, it doesn't give guidance on when to choose this over list_assets or other asset-related tools, leaving alternative selection to the agent.

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