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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an access prerequisite (Proof account), an authentication requirement, and a retry instruction, while 'Returns proof tokens' implies a non-mutating read operation. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but the auth caveat adds meaningful 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?

Two short, purposeful sections: one for purpose/return value and one for access requirements. No filler, and the most important operational caveat (authentication) is clearly separated and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers what the tool returns, its purpose, and the required authentication flow. It doesn't detail the proof token format or response structure, but those details are not essential for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the single id parameter is documented as 'Verification request ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 tokens are for offline verification. This semantically distinguishes it from siblings like get_verification_request, get_proof_status, or validate_proof.

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 clear context for when to use the tool by describing the offline-verification use case and specifying the required Proof account and authentication flow. It explicitly says start_login does NOT open this tool, which prevents a likely misstep, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other conditions.

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