list_my_requests

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's added value is the auth/session workflow (set PROOF_API_KEY or sign in via start_login, then re-invoke). That is real operational context beyond the annotation. It still says nothing about pagination or result size, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with setup requirements quarantined in a labelled ACCESS block. Both sentences earn their place, though the ACCESS block is slightly longer than strictly necessary for the information conveyed.

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 a parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is needed: what it returns conceptually (the caller's own requests) and the prerequisite to run it. The absence of any hint about result volume or filtering is a minor 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics for the description to carry; the 4 baseline applies. Nothing here misleads about inputs.

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 clear verb and resource ("List verification requests") and adds a scope qualifier, "created by the authenticated user," the same scoping pattern the calibration example rewarded. It differentiates reasonably from siblings like list_incoming_requests, though it never names one explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 ACCESS block explains the precondition for calling it (a Proof account, API key, or start_login), which is genuine usage context. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over near-neighbours such as list_verification_requests or list_incoming_requests, leaving the choice to inference.

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