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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the authentication prerequisite and the 'start_login does NOT open this tool' nuance, which is useful. However, it does not explain the response format, pagination, empty-result behavior, or what happens when auth is missing.

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 short and mostly front-loaded with the core purpose. The first two sentences are slightly redundant ('displayed on profile' vs 'public proof display'), but the access note is well-structured and earns its place. No filler.

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 zero-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, eligibility criteria, and authentication requirements. The lack of an explicit output shape is a minor gap but not critical for such a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none.

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 operation: 'Get available verified assets that can be displayed on the user's profile'. It adds scope by noting assets are 'eligible for public proof display', which helps distinguish this from generic asset tools like list_assets or get_asset. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate among those sibling tools.

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 concrete usage context: a Proof account is required, the client must be authenticated, and the tool should be called again after authentication. It also explicitly warns that 'start_login does NOT open this tool', preventing a likely misuse. It does not mention alternative listing tools, but the given guidance is clear.

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