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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: authentication is required and the returned tokens support offline verification. It stops short of describing failure behavior for unverified or partially verified requests.

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 compact sentences plus a short access note; the core purpose and the offline-verification payoff are front-loaded, and the auth caveat follows rather than burying the main point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the auth prerequisite is spelled out. The remaining gap is behavior on requests that are not yet verified — whether it errors or returns a partial set — which an agent would want to know.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage ('Verification request ID'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no scope detail such as whether the ID is the request reference or internal ID, so 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 ('Get proof tokens for verified assets in a verification request') and clarifies the downstream use ('offline verification'). It is distinguishable from nearby tools like get_verification_request or get_proof_status by focusing on token retrieval, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 clear prerequisite (a Proof account must be authenticated, with the note that start_login will not unlock this tool), which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over get_verification_request, get_proof_status, or list_revoked_proofs, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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