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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: creation is tied to the signed-in account, wallet omission is allowed for self-verification, and multisigner cases must use the prepare/submit flow. It does not explain persistence or proof privacy here, but the schema covers privacy options.

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 primary action and followed by the two key routing rules. There is 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?

For a mutation tool with rich schema descriptions, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the critical routing and account-context information an agent needs. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already explains most parameters in detail. The description still adds a useful rule not stated in the walletAddress schema: omit the wallet when creating a proof for the signed-in account.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a proof directly') plus an explicit account scope ('for the signed-in account'). It also distinguishes the direct path from the prepare/submit flow, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling verification tools without inspecting each 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?

It states when to use this tool directly and names the alternative when another signer is required: proofable_verify_prepare and proofable_verify_submit. It also tells the caller to omit the wallet for their own account, which is a useful selection rule.

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