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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that authentication is required and that the tool returns the full confirmation with specific fields. However, it does not mention error handling, idempotency, or any side effects (though read-only is implied). This is adequate but not rich.

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 description is extremely concise: two sentences plus an access note. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the access requirement is clearly separated. No unnecessary words.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and access prerequisites. It doesn't explain what a 'confirmation' is or potential error scenarios, but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% because the only parameter (id) is described as 'Confirmation ID'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's meaning, only reiterating that it fetches by ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('confirmation by ID'), and the return content ('full confirmation including status, response, and proof token'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_confirmation_approval_link and list_confirmations by specifying retrieval by ID and the returned fields.

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?

Explicitly states the access prerequisite (needs a Proof account) and provides concrete authentication steps (Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate) before using the tool. It also clarifies that start_login does NOT open this tool, which helps the agent avoid a wrong path. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like list_confirmations, but the context is clear enough.

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