list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds important operational context: authentication via API key is required and the login flow does not authorize this tool. It does not describe pagination defaults, response shape, or rate-limit behavior, but the read-only nature of 'List' is implied.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the ACCESS block delivers only essential operational instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an optional-parameter list tool, the description covers the key auth prerequisite and the schema covers parameters, but it lacks output/return hints and does not route between competing asset-listing siblings. The partial list of asset types (missing social/wallet) also leaves a small completeness gap.

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 parameters are already well documented with enums for type and status. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and its parenthetical asset examples omit the social and wallet types present in the type enum, though the schema compensates.

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 states a clear action ('List all verified assets') and defines the resource as verified identities with examples (phones, emails, domains). It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_profile_assets or list_verified_users.

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?

The description provides useful access prerequisites (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, restart server) and warns that start_login doesn't open this tool, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternative listing tools such as get_profile_assets, list_emails, list_phones, or list_domains.

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