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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful disclosure beyond that: the code is never returned, which is a security-relevant constraint and hints at the intended use (polling status, not verifying a code). It stops short of describing pagination or attempt-list shape.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical about the code is the highest-value detail placed where it will be read. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes on return-value explanation and does so partially: status and attempts, explicitly excluding the code. It leaves open what values status can take and whether attempts is a count or a list, which would matter for a tool whose whole purpose is reading that state.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description reinforces that the id is a verification id used for direct lookup, adding no ambiguity, but nothing beyond the schema either — the baseline for a well-covered single param.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (a verification) and names the lookup key (id), plus previews the returned content: status and attempts. It does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling check_verification or send_verification/fallback_verification, so an agent must infer which one reads existing state.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Retrieve ... by id' — a read of an existing verification — but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over check_verification (which presumably submits/validates a code) or send_verification. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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