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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value beyond annotations: the full status enumeration, the channel returned, the proof token/proof_id arriving only after the subject decides, the account/auth requirement, and the polling-for-resolution behavior. It stops short of detailing pagination or error cases.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return shape, then a clearly separated ACCESS block. Every sentence carries information; only minor verbosity in listing all nine status values keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description justifiably carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating statuses and the proof payload. Combined with the auth prerequisite and polling guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents 'id' as the Identity challenge ID with a hex pattern. The description adds nothing beyond 'by ID,' so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameter documentation 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get a Proof-Me identity challenge by ID,' which cleanly separates it from create_identity_challenge and the sibling get_* tools. However, it never explicitly names or routes against an alternative tool (e.g. get_verification, get_multi_channel_verification_status), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Poll this for resolution' gives a clear operational directive for when to call it, and the ACCESS block lays out the prerequisite (authenticated Proof account) plus the note that 'start_login does NOT open this tool.' No explicit when-not or named alternative is provided, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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