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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the returned payload, including conditional fields (winning_channel, proof token with expires_at) and the authentication prerequisite. It does not mention error cases or explicitly state non-destructiveness, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Get the status'.

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 two tight paragraphs: the first specifies the operation and return values, the second provides essential access instructions. No filler or repetition, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the necessary inputs, return fields, and authentication requirement. It does not explain error behavior when the group_id is invalid or the group is not found, but this is a minor omission given the clear access instructions and return format.

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 schema already documents group_id as the multi-channel verification group ID with format vg_<hex>. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('status of a multi-channel verification group') with a clear identifier ('group_id'). It enumerates the exact returned fields (aggregate status, winning_channel, per-channel statuses, proof token), which distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_verification or get_user_domain_verification_status.

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?

The description gives explicit access context: a Proof account is required, the client must be authenticated first, and it explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool. This is clear when-to-use direction, though it does not name alternative tools for comparison.

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