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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds value by clarifying the boolean/pass-fail semantics of the result and the signed-in-wallet fallback behavior, which are not encoded in annotations.

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 question and immediately followed by the disambiguation rule and the auth shortcut. No 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, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, the sibling alternative, and the signed-in default. It is essentially complete, though it says nothing about behavior when verifiers are not found or how minCount/requireAll interact with the pass/fail verdict.

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 every parameter (gateId, handle, wallet, minCount, namespace, verifiers, requireAll) is already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter note ('Omit the wallet when signed in') restates the wallet schema description verbatim, adding no new semantics.

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 question ('Does this wallet already have the required proofs?') and clarifies the output nature ('Returns pass or fail, not records'), which separates it from the sibling that returns data. It explicitly names proofable_proofs_get as the contrasting read tool, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative: 'To read proofs, use proofable_proofs_get.' It also supplies the condition for omitting a parameter ('Omit the wallet when signed in'), which is real when-to-use guidance tied to auth state.

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