get_multi_channel_verification_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements, an operational prerequisite (restart after setting PROOF_API_KEY), and return behavior including aggregate status, winning_channel, per-channel statuses, and proof token expiry. It does not cover error or not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple getter.

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 description is compact and well-structured: the core status/return info comes first, followed by a distinct, actionable ACCESS note. Every sentence adds value, and there is 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 read-only status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context needed to call it correctly: what it returns, what values to expect, and how to authenticate. Nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains group_id's format (vg_<hex>). The description only says 'by its group_id' and adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb ('Get the status'), the exact resource ('multi-channel verification group'), and the lookup key ('group_id'). It also enumerates what is returned, which immediately distinguishes this from single-channel verification or proof-status tools.

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 guidance: a Proof account is required, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, the server must be restarted, and start_login does not enable this tool. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the read-status purpose and multi-channel scope make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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