get_add_email_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it requires a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, and a restart or start_login flow before it will work. It does not describe polling behavior, terminal states, or rate expectations, which is a minor gap for a status-check tool.

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 one-line purpose followed by a clearly labeled ACCESS block; every sentence earns its place. The flow instruction is slightly procedural but genuinely useful for invocation.

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 read-only status tool the coverage is close to adequate, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema, the description says nothing about what status values or fields are returned, which an agent polling for completion would benefit from.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The phrase 'by session ID' merely restates it without adding format, provenance, or validity details (e.g., where the session ID comes from is only implied by the start_login hint).

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 ('Check the status of an in-progress email addition') and scopes it to a session ID, which distinguishes it from siblings like start_add_email and verify_email_otp. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not (e.g., get_add_phone_status or verify_email_otp).

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 real workflow context: the session is opened by start_login and the caller should 'call this tool again' after authenticating. It clarifies when the tool becomes usable, though it never states when NOT to use it or which alternative covers a completed/failed addition.

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