create_verification_request

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: this creates a multi-asset flow, it is gated behind Proof account credentials, and restarting the server is required. It does not mention that the request is likely async (wait_for_request, get_request_proofs siblings exist) or any rate/limit behavior.

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?

Two tight paragraphs with the capability stated first and the access precondition second; no filler. The access sentence is slightly awkward ('then call this tool again') but it is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 10-parameter tool with nested objects, enums, and no output schema, the description covers the credential gate but says nothing about what is returned (request id, per-asset status) or how the caller is expected to follow up. Enough to invoke, incomplete for driving the resulting workflow.

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% across 10 parameters with nested asset objects, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description only restates the asset type list and adds nothing about defaults, channel selection, or the action_context/expires_in interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource (create a multi-asset verification request) and enumerates the seven asset types it covers, so the agent understands scope. It does not name the near-identical siblings (create_verification, create_multi_channel_verification), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Provides a concrete precondition (needs a Proof account; set PROOF_API_KEY and restart) and a negative hint that start_login does not unlock it, which is genuinely useful. However, with ~140 siblings including create_verification, create_multi_channel_verification, create_confirmation and create_authorization, the description never says when this multi-asset form is preferred over those alternatives.

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