list_my_proofs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data and the description's main contribution is the authentication/setup prerequisite, which is genuinely useful context beyond annotations. Beyond that it says nothing about result volume, pagination, ordering, or whether unverified or pending assets are excluded by the "verified" qualifier. Adequate but thin for a list tool that could return unbounded results.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the definition of assets follows immediately, and the access block is set off as a distinct labeled section. Slightly wordy in the ACCESS paragraph ("then call this tool again") but every line carries actionable information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose, domain vocabulary, both optional filters indirectly, and the auth prerequisite. The remaining gap is how this tool relates to list_assets and the per-type list tools, plus any result-size behavior, which leaves it just short of fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both filters enumerated and described, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of phone/email/domain loosely reinforces the type filter but omits the social and wallet values present in the enum, so it adds no syntax or interpretation beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List all verified assets for the authenticated user") and defines the domain term "assets" with concrete examples (phones, emails, domains). It stops short of distinguishing this from nearby siblings such as list_assets, list_phones, or list_emails, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone whether this is a superset or a differently-scoped view.

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 a real precondition (a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY configured, then restart) and explicitly rules out a sibling: "start_login does NOT open this tool." That negation prevents a plausible wrong turn. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over the per-type list tools, so the routing guidance is partial rather than complete.

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