get_proof

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious trait: the subtotals are claims, not verified facts, and may be rejected by verify_proof if they do not reconcile. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the data's trustworthiness.

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 what the tool returns, and every sentence adds useful context. The wording about claims and verify_proof is distinctive without being verbose.

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?

The output schema covers return structure, so the description need not repeat it. The tool's workflow position, contents, and data-reliability caveat are all present. It could have mentioned where run_id and match_id originate, but that is a minor gap given the clear identifiers.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It implies that match_id selects a match and run_id scopes that match, but it does not explicitly explain how the identifiers relate or where they come from. The names are self-evident, but the description adds only marginal direct parameter meaning.

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 ('one match with its full proof'), and enumerates the contents: every leg, record ids, and subtotal. It also distinguishes itself from verify_proof by positioning itself as the pre-verification read step.

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 explicitly frames when to use this tool: 'What a verifier reads before calling verify_proof.' It also contrasts with verify_proof, making the workflow ordering clear. This is strong usage guidance relative to the large sibling set.

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