get_identity_challenge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses the return contents, the conditional presence of the proof token ('once confirmed'), and the polling semantics. It also adds a non-obvious access gotcha about start_login not opening the tool. This is solid for a simple read/poll operation.

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 operation and return information are front-loaded in the first sentence, with 'Poll this for resolution' immediately after. The ACCESS note is separated and contains important setup information without padding. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes value.

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: one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema. The description covers purpose, response contents, and polling behavior, which is enough for an agent to select and call it. It does not enumerate possible status values or error cases, but that is a minor gap for this low-complexity getter.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the id parameter documented as 'Identity challenge ID' and constrained by a hex pattern. The description only says 'by ID,' which adds no new semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Get a Proof-Me identity challenge by ID.' It also lists what the call returns (status, channel, proof token), making it clear this is a retrieval/polling operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling getters like get_confirmation, but the identity-challenge scoping is specific enough.

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 instruction 'Poll this for resolution' gives clear context for when to use this tool: after obtaining an identity challenge ID, call this repeatedly until resolved. The ACCESS note further clarifies prerequisites and that start_login does not unlock this tool. It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the guidance is sufficient.

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