list_assets

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is the authentication/configuration requirement and the explicit failure mode with start_login — non-obvious behavioral facts the annotations cannot express. Pagination and default filtering behavior (e.g. what happens with no type/status filter) are still undisclosed.

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 sentences: purpose first, resource definition second, then a clearly labeled ACCESS block. The remediation steps ('Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server, then call this tool again') are operational but earn their place because the tool is otherwise unusable.

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?

Return shape is covered by the output schema and parameters are fully documented, so the description only needed to add access prerequisites and resource semantics — both of which it does. It falls short of complete because an agent still cannot predict the no-filter default or result volume.

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% with both parameters enumerated, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's gloss on what an 'asset' is gives partial meaning to the type filter, but it does not clarify whether filters are ANDed, what status means for domains vs wallets, or whether omitted filters return everything.

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 ('List all verified assets for the authenticated user') and defines the resource ('Assets are verified identities (phones, emails, domains)'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower list_phones / list_emails / list_domains siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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 (a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY set, server restarted) and an explicit negative: 'start_login does NOT open this tool', which saves an agent from a plausible but wrong path. It does not say when to prefer this over the type-specific sibling list tools, which is the remaining gap.

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