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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the pass/fail (not records) return shape and the auth/session constraint that gates richer access. It stops short of describing rate limits or partial-failure behavior, but this is solid added context.

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 front-loaded sentences that answer the core question first, then qualify with auth context. Slightly dense in the middle sentence but no wasted filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return fields, and it caps its return-value discussion at the useful 'pass or fail, not records' distinction. Auth behavior for signed-in versus signed-out callers is covered, leaving little an agent needs that is missing.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'omit wallet when signed in' rule the description repeats. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 question the tool answers ('Does this wallet already have the required proofs?') and clarifies the output shape ('Returns pass or fail, not records'). It implicitly separates itself from proofable_proofs_get, but does not differentiate itself from the three actual siblings listed (context, verifiers_catalog, verify_or_guide).

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?

It gives a clear conditional: signed-out callers get this check, and reading proof bodies requires a signed-in session, which routes the agent to proofable_proofs_get. There is no explicit 'do not use when' for the other siblings, but the auth-based selection rule is clear.

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