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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the auth requirement and the session-opening behavior of start_login, which is useful. However, it does not describe pagination, ordering, or what happens when the user is not authenticated beyond the instruction to authenticate.

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 with the core purpose, then adds the access note. The auth instructions are necessary given the tool's dependency on an authenticated session, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description covers the main requirement (authentication) and the subject scope. It lacks details on response shape or pagination, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to attempt the call 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description adds meaning by defining the implicit filter: requests where the authenticated user is the subject. This is the only meaningful semantic content, and it is present.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('incoming verification requests') and clarifies the scope ('where the authenticated user is the subject'). This distinguishes it from list_verification_requests and list_my_requests, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 description gives clear context: it requires a Proof account and authentication, and it tells the agent to authenticate via /mcp or start_login, then call again. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_verification_requests or list_my_requests, but the subject-scoping is implied.

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