get_confirmation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It covers authentication behavior (API key + restart) and return contents. It implies read-only semantics through 'Get' and 'Returns' but does not disclose error or not-found behavior.

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 definition is short and front-loaded with the operation, then the return summary, then access notes. Every sentence contributes either to invocation or access, with no filler.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and required setup, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it omits error semantics (e.g., invalid/unknown ID) and does not point to list_confirmations for obtaining IDs, so there is a minor 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?

The schema covers the only parameter completely with 'Confirmation ID' (100% coverage). The description's 'by ID' adds no format, example, or additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get a confirmation by ID', and specifies what is returned ('full confirmation including status, response, and proof token'). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like list_confirmations or wait_for_confirmation because it is a direct fetch by 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?

It gives concrete access prerequisites: a Proof account, setting PROOF_API_KEY, restarting the server, and retrying. It also explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which steers the agent away from the wrong authentication path. It does not explicitly name alternative lookup tools, so it falls short of fully explicit when-to-use guidance.

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