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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return behavior (full verification object, fields included, conditional proof token if verified) and the access requirement. It does not mention error behavior or explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the 'Get' verb and return-focused wording make the read nature reasonably clear.

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 and front-loaded: the core action and return behavior appear in the first sentence, followed by a succinctly formatted access note. Every sentence adds distinct value, including the start_login clarification, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 getter with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what it returns, the access prerequisite, and a common mistaken path. It omits details about invalid/missing ID behavior and any rate limits, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter, id, is already documented as 'Verification ID'. The description restates that the tool gets a verification by ID but adds no extra detail about id format, validation, or how it maps to the returned object. This is the baseline score for a simple, well-covered single 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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a verification by ID'), and the expected return content ('full verification object including status, channel, and proof token if verified'). It distinguishes itself from list-oriented siblings like list_verifications, but does not explicitly contrast with similarly named tools like get_verification_request or 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?

The description gives clear access context: it requires a Proof account and tells the agent to authenticate then retry, and it explicitly warns that start_login does not open this tool. This is helpful when-to-use guidance, though it does not compare against alternative get/list verification tools.

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