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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful flow context ('Signed-in ownership proofs finish here', 'Share a hosted link only when this tool returns one') but never explains the two-phase prepare/approve flow implied by the signature parameter, nor what a refresh overwrites.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. 'Signed-in ownership proofs finish here' is slightly cryptic but carries flow information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive, openWorld, 7-param tool with nested objects, the description omits the prepare-then-sign two-step flow, what gets mutated, and any auth prerequisites beyond the signed-in note.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all seven parameters thoroughly. The description only restates wallet omission ('Omit the wallet when signed in'), adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for full coverage applies.

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 ('Create or refresh a portable proof') with scope. It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings like proofable_verify_or_guide or proofable_proofs_get, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'After confirming that one is needed' implies a prior check but never names the checking tool (e.g. proofable_verify_or_guide). It gives conditional guidance on omitting the wallet and when to share a hosted link, but no explicit when-not or alternative routing.

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