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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-style operation, states the authentication prerequisite, and warns about a misleading alternative flow (start_login). It does not cover response format or errors, but for a simple list tool the access behavior is the most important context and is present.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a short definition of assets and a focused ACCESS block. Every sentence earns its place, though the access instructions are slightly verbose with repeated references to authentication.

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 read-only listing tool with four optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the resource, states auth requirements, and warns against a wrong invocation path. It could be richer by noting response shape or default paging behavior, but these are not critical gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all four optional parameters. The description adds high-level context about "verified assets" but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the input schema provides, 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "List all verified assets for the authenticated user," and clarifies what assets are (verified identities like phones, emails, domains). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list tools such as list_emails or list_phones, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 note gives clear context: a Proof account is required, the client must be authenticated via /mcp → Authenticate, and start_login does not open this tool. This provides actionable when/how guidance, though it does not explain when to choose list_assets over the more specific list_phones, list_emails, or list_domains tools.

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