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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the account requirement ('needs a Proof account'), the exact authenticate flow, and the anti-pattern around start_login. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though return format/pagination behavior remains unstated.

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 short blocks: what it returns first, then the access prerequisite. Front-loaded and mostly waste-free, though the parenthetical UI path is slightly verbose for an agent audience.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and it covers the auth prerequisite that would otherwise cause a failed call. Adequate for a single-parameter read tool.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about ID format or validity, making 3 the correct 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a single verified asset by ID') and enumerates the returned fields (type, value, status, timestamps). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from list_assets, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear authentication precondition and, unusually, an explicit negative routing hint: 'start_login does NOT open this tool,' steering the agent away from a wrong recovery path. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over list_assets or get_profile_assets.

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