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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the tokens support offline verification, and there is an authentication prerequisite with a specific failure/remediation path. It does not describe pagination or token lifetimes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with return semantics second and access mechanics last. Slightly verbose in the ACCESS block but every line carries actionable information.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the nature of the return, and auth requirements. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps (no pagination or result-shape detail).

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 documents it fully. The description adds no format or constraint detail about the ID beyond what the schema states, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 ('Get proof tokens for verified assets in a verification request') and clarifies the return value (offline-verification tokens). It is clearly distinguishable from generic readers like get_verification_request, though it does not name which sibling to prefer.

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?

Useful access guidance is given (needs a Proof account, authenticate then retry, and a notable 'start_login does NOT open this tool' exclusion). However it never states when to choose this over closely related siblings like get_proof_status, get_verification_request, or list_revoked_proofs.

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