list_incoming_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding behavior an agent cannot see in the annotations: the call requires an authenticated Proof account, how auth can be satisfied (env var plus server restart, or a session opened via start_login), and that it must be re-called after authenticating. That is genuinely actionable context for a zero-param read tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by the access requirement. The auth sentence carries real weight rather than filler, though the em-dash aside about start_login is dense and could be tightened.

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, so the description is the only source for what comes back — and it says nothing about the shape of the request list, ordering, or whether results are paginated. Combined with no indication of how 'incoming' differs from the other request-listing siblings, the definition is adequate but leaves visible gaps. Annotations cover the safety profile, limiting the damage.

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 no parameters, so there are no semantics to document or clarify; per the baseline this sits at 4. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly does not invent parameter talk.

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 specific verb and resource ('List incoming verification requests') plus a scoping qualifier ('where the authenticated user is the subject'), which sharpens it against the many sibling list tools. It does not name or contrast the close siblings list_verification_requests or list_my_requests, so an agent must infer the distinction from position in the API rather than being told.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisite guidance ('needs a Proof account') with two concrete remediation paths (set PROOF_API_KEY, or sign in with start_login) — better than nothing. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over the adjacent list_my_requests / list_verification_requests tools, which is the primary selection ambiguity for an agent here.

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