get_2fa_status

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

With readOnlyHint already covering the safety profile, the description still adds substantial behavioral context: polling cadence, the meaning of each terminal state, and the requirement that the caller's reply text must surface the link/SMS before polling. It does not quantify rate limits or backoff, but the cadence guidance goes well beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return states, then usage, then auth access. Every paragraph is functional, though the 'Agent usage' block runs somewhat long relative to a single-parameter read 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?

For a read-only single-param tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned states and stating the Proof account/API-key prerequisite. It stops short of situating itself against the sibling set (verify_2fa, wait_for_2fa), which is the remaining completeness gap.

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% for the single session_id parameter, so the schema already carries the full parameter definition. The description adds only the tie-in to start_2fa ('a challenge you created') and no format or provenance details, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 precise verb and resource ('Check the status of a 2FA session by session ID') and enumerates the possible outcomes (completed, pending, expired). An agent can distinguish this from get_verification or get_proof_status without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('Poll this after calling start_2fa. Check every few seconds') and maps terminal states to next actions ('expired' → restart with start_2fa). It never mentions wait_for_2fa, a sibling that appears to serve the blocking alternative to polling, which leaves one routing decision to inference.

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