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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top by disclosing the returned status vocabulary (PROVEN, UNPROVEN, INVALID), the state machine (pending → reviewed → verified/partial/failed), and that no credentials are needed. It stops short of noting whether the result changes over time or how large a certificate payload can be.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the state model before the return payload and the credential note. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description bears the return-value burden and does so by naming the states, per-claim statuses, failing tests, verified revision, and certificate sha256. It is nearly complete for correct invocation; only the exact response shape and behavior on unknown ids are left unstated.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains that creationId comes from request_proof. The description adds no further meaning about format, validity, or what happens with an unknown or expired id, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the state of a proof request') and then enumerates the discrete states it can return plus the fields it yields, so an agent knows exactly what this tool surfaces. The 'proof request' framing cleanly separates it from creation-oriented siblings like request_proof and publish_creation.

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?

Usage is only implied: read back a proof request, keyed by the creationId that request_proof produced. It never states when to call this versus alternatives, whether it should be polled while a proof is pending, or what to do with a 'failed' result. The 'requires no credentials' line is the only concrete consumer-facing hint.

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