get_add_email_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which matches the read-only polling nature of the tool, so there is no contradiction. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it requires a Proof account, may need PROOF_API_KEY plus a server restart, or a start_login session before the call will succeed. That authentication/setup disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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 short, front-loaded statements: the purpose first, then the access prerequisite. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical 'a session opens this tool' is slightly ambiguous about whether it refers to an auth session or an add-email session.

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 tool is simple, has one documented parameter, an output schema covering return values, and readOnlyHint annotations covering safety. The description closes the remaining gap by explaining the authentication prerequisite, so an agent knows everything needed to invoke it successfully.

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, session_id, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as 'Add-email session ID'. The description restates 'by session ID' without adding format, origin, or lifetime details, so this is the baseline case where the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of an in-progress email addition by session ID.' That clearly separates it from mutation siblings such as start_add_email or remove_email, and from check_domain_email_status by the 'email addition' scope. It stops short of naming its counterpart (start_add_email) explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 phrase 'in-progress email addition' implies this is a follow-up poll after starting an add-email flow, and the ACCESS block states the prerequisite of a Proof account. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (for example, vs. get_add_phone_status or check_domain_email_status), so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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