get_identity_challenge

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

readOnlyHint=true is covered by annotations, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the full status enumeration (pending, confirmed, denied, cancelled, failed, expired, revoked, suspended), what the CONFIRM channel reveals, and the fact that proof token/proof_id only appear after a decision. It also documents an auth requirement (PROOF_API_KEY) and clarifies that start_login does not unlock this tool, which is valuable over the bare annotation.

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 first sentence front-loads purpose; the second enumerates outcomes and the polling directive; the third addresses auth prerequisites. Slightly dense but every sentence earns its place. The status list is long but genuinely useful. A minor deduction for packing the auth note into the same block without a clearer separation.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by listing the possible status values and explaining when the proof token/proof_id become available. It also covers the auth requirement and rules out start_login as an unlock path. The main remaining gap is that it doesn't describe error behavior for an invalid/expired ID or polling cadence guidance.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented with a pattern in the schema itself. The description only restates that it takes an ID, adding no new syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (Get) + resource (Proof-Me identity challenge) + identifier (by ID). It clearly distinguishes from sibling create_identity_challenge and the many get_* tools by specifying the Proof-Me challenge domain and the ID-based retrieval.

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?

Explicitly says 'Poll this for resolution', which is a clear usage instruction and implies it's the read counterpart to create_identity_challenge. It does not, however, name a specific alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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