get_confirmation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the auth requirement and the return payload (status, response, proof token), which an agent needs to know before calling and interpreting results.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the access caveat clearly separated. The ACCESS note is slightly verbose but every clause is operative; nothing is padding.

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-ID fetch with no output schema, the description supplies both return content and the auth prerequisite, which is enough for correct invocation. Only a pointer to related tools (e.g. wait_for_confirmation) is missing.

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% with a single described 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description repeats 'by ID' without adding format, source, or lookup guidance, warranting the baseline 3.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a confirmation') scoped 'by ID', which distinguishes it from sibling list_confirmations, create_confirmation, and get_confirmation_approval_link. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Provides a real precondition (needs a Proof account, set PROOF_API_KEY and restart) and rules out a tempting wrong path ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). It does not clarify when to prefer this over get_confirmation_approval_link or wait_for_confirmation, but the access guidance is concrete and actionable.

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