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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only status check. It adds real operational context beyond the annotations: the tool requires an authenticated Proof account and describes the auth flow (authenticate via /mcp or start_login). It stops short of describing lifecycle/polling behavior of the in-progress session.

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 one tight sentence, followed by a clearly separated access note. The access block is somewhat verbose but each clause carries actionable information for an agent hitting an auth failure.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally describe what status values are returned and whether polling is expected; it does neither. It also omits where session_id comes from. The auth guidance is helpful but leaves these functional gaps for a status-check tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already documented as 'Add-email session ID'. The description restates 'by session ID' but adds no origin or format information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Check the status') and resource ('in-progress email addition') with the keying field ('by session ID'). The email resource implicitly separates it from the sibling get_add_phone_status, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives access/authentication guidance (needs a Proof account; authenticate or use start_login). However, it does not say where the session_id originates (presumably start_add_email) or when to prefer this over wait_for_verification or get_add_phone_status, so the when-to-use guidance is incomplete.

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