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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the need for authentication and that the tool requires a Proof account, which is crucial behavioral context. It also explains that a live proof reads 'active', clarifying the return value. However, it doesn't detail what happens if the ID is invalid or the exact response structure, which could be improved.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and return information. The access note is valuable but could be seen as a bit of an aside, though it's essential for successful invocation. It doesn't waste words and is easy to parse.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the necessary access conditions. It's complete enough for an agent to know whether to call it and what to expect, but could be slightly enhanced with error handling or response format details, though not strictly required.

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?

The schema description for the single parameter is 100% covered, as the description repeats the same information about the ID format. This repetition adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description of the parameter in the schema is already clear and specific.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get the status of a proof by its public handle or verification ID, and what statuses are returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying its unique input type and that it returns proof status, which is distinct from list_revoked_proofs or validate_proof.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool and includes an explicit access requirement: needing a Proof account and authentication via the 'Authenticate' flow. It also notes that start_login does not open this tool, which helps avoid incorrect usage. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it in favor of another tool, but the context is sufficient for basic routing.

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