get_multi_channel_verification_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond it: the full set of returned fields and status values, the expires_at semantics, the auth prerequisite, and a non-obvious caller obligation to surface the link/SMS in reply text rather than only in a tool result. No return-format disclosure is needed since no output schema exists, but it provides it anyway.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then behavior, then access in clearly separated blocks. The middle paragraph about reply text is unusually specific but purposeful, and each sentence carries distinct information; only slightly long.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return contents (aggregate status, winning_channel, per-channel statuses, proof token with expires_at) and covers the auth prerequisite and caller-side UX obligation. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 parameter already documents the vg_<hex> format. The description restates 'by its group_id' without adding syntax or 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (status of a multi-channel verification group) keyed by group_id. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the crowded get_verification / get_verification_request / get_proof_status siblings by naming the multi-channel group scope explicitly.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('for a challenge you created') and a prerequisite (needs a Proof account), but does not explicitly route the agent away from alternatives such as get_verification or get_proof_status. Clear context without exclusions.

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