get_add_email_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the access requirement and implies a read-only status check, but it does not describe what statuses may be returned, whether polling is safe or rate-limited, or what the response will contain. This is a noticeable gap.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence. The access paragraph is somewhat verbose but relevant and does not obscure the main point. Overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool checks and how to authenticate, but it does not document possible return statuses or how the session ID is obtained, which an agent would need to act on the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, session_id, is described as 'Add-email session ID.' The description adds little beyond that, only reiterating that the operation is by session ID. This meets the baseline but provides no extra provenance or format guidance.

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 and resource: 'Check the status of an in-progress email addition by session ID.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like start_add_email or get_add_phone_status by scoping it to an email addition and requiring a session ID.

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 gives clear context: this is for an in-progress email addition, and it provides explicit access guidance for authenticated use, including setting PROOF_API_KEY or signing in via start_login. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for a simple status-polling tool.

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