list_public_page_proof_options

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a list operation, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotation: the account/API-key prerequisite and the note that the standard login flow will not unlock it. However, it says nothing about result size, ordering, or what happens when the account has no verified proofs, and the output schema is left to carry the return-shape burden.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the access caveat that a caller genuinely needs. No filler sentences; the capitalized ACCESS label makes the precondition scannable.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and a declaring annotation, the description covers purpose, workflow linkage, and access prerequisites. The only remaining gap, result cardinality or pagination, is minor given the output schema exists.

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% and the single profile_id parameter is well documented in the schema itself, including its effect on each asset's is_public flag. The description adds no additional meaning about that parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the verified proofs that can be shown on the Public page') and ties the result set to a named sibling tool, update_public_page_proofs, so the agent knows these are the eligible values for that write. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other list_* siblings such as list_assets, but the scoping to 'Public page proofs' is specific enough to avoid confusion in practice.

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 states the workflow context implicitly and explicitly: fetch eligible proofs here, then apply them with update_public_page_proofs. It also gives an access precondition and an explicit exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool'), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It does not name any alternative read tool or describe the case where you would not call it.

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