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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the authentication prerequisite and an interaction note about start_login, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the reference ID does not exist, or any error behavior. This is partial, not comprehensive.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only the essential access warning in a separate block. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 lookup, the description covers the crucial access context and the limitation about start_login. It does not describe the return value or structure, but the tool name and the absence of an output schema make the expected result reasonably inferable.

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% with a clear description of reference_id, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the same idea ('your unique identifier') without adding syntax, format constraints, or examples, so it adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get a verification request') and the lookup key ('its reference ID'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_verification_request, so it stops short of a 5, but the resource and method are unambiguous.

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 explicit access guidance: a Proof account is needed, the client must authenticate, and the tool should be called again after authentication. It also warns that start_login does not open this tool. However, it does not state when to prefer this over alternative get/list tools, so it is not a full 5.

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