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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the auth prerequisite (needs a Proof account, authenticate then retry). It does not, however, mention pagination behavior or the shape/ordering of results, which would matter for a list tool with page/limit params.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and definition, then the access caveat. No padding. Slightly fragmented by the ALL-CAPS ACCESS block but still efficient and readable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries more burden, and it stops short of describing return contents, pagination, or result ordering. It does cover the essential auth prerequisite and the meaning of 'asset', which keeps it minimally viable rather than inadequate.

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% with two enums, so the schema fully documents page, type, limit, and status. The description clarifies the general concept of an 'asset' but adds no syntax, filtering semantics, or default info beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('List all verified assets') and even defines what an asset is ('verified identities (phones, emails, domains)'), which helps distinguish it from generic list tools. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like list_phones, list_emails, list_domains, or get_profile_assets, and its asset list omits the 'social' and 'wallet' types present in the schema enum.

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 genuine when-not clue about authentication ('start_login does NOT open this tool'), which is useful routing info. But it offers no guidance on when to use this aggregate list versus the type-specific siblings (list_phones, list_emails, list_domains), leaving the core selection decision to inference.

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