get_profile_assets

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses both the return content (assets eligible for public proof display) and a concrete auth prerequisite (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, restart). Disclosing auth requirements is exactly the added value annotations don't carry; pagination and result size remain unstated, keeping it from a 5.

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 short, front-loaded blocks with the purpose first and the access caveat second. There is mild redundancy between 'can be displayed on the user's profile' and 'eligible for public proof display', but no padding otherwise.

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 no-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers purpose, return semantics, and the auth prerequisite that gates invocation. The access note is the key operational detail an agent would otherwise miss, so the definition is essentially complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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 ('Get available verified assets') and adds a scoping qualifier ('can be displayed on the user's profile' / 'eligible for public proof display'). It is clearly distinguishable from the broader list_assets/get_asset siblings by the profile-display scope, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 real usage context: the tool requires a Proof account, and it explicitly routes the agent away from start_login ('start_login does NOT open this tool') with the remedy (set PROOF_API_KEY and restart). It doesn't, however, contrast with sibling asset tools like list_assets or get_asset, so 'vs alternatives' is only partially covered.

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