list_assets

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint, so the description usefully adds the authentication requirement (needs a Proof account, set PROOF_API_KEY, restart the server). This is real behavioral context beyond the annotation, though return shape and pagination behavior are not disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then defines the resource and states the access constraint. No filler, though the three-part access instruction is somewhat verbose relative to the core listing description.

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?

There is no output schema and no pagination guidance despite page/limit parameters, so an agent calling with defaults gets no expectation of result size or paging behavior. The access requirement is complete, but the listing semantics are under-specified for a paginated read tool.

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 two enums documented, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about type/status/page/limit semantics, and 'List all' slightly undersells the available filters. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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') and helpfully defines what an asset is ('verified identities (phones, emails, domains)'). However, it does not differentiate from overlapping siblings like list_phones, list_emails, list_domains, or get_profile_assets, so an agent cannot tell whether this supersedes the type-specific listers.

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 clear access prerequisite and one explicit exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool'), which is genuine routing guidance. But it never says when to use this aggregate lister versus the per-type listers or get_profile_assets, so the main selection decision is left implicit.

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