get_proof_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned status vocabulary (active/suspended/expired/revoked) and clarifying that a live proof reads 'active'. The credential/auth prerequisite is also disclosed, which the annotations do not carry.

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-loaded with the action and return semantics, then the access prerequisite as a separate short block. Nearly every sentence earns its place; only the slightly redundant restatement of the handle formats costs a point.

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 compensates by enumerating the possible status values the tool returns. Combined with the stated auth requirement and identifier formats, an agent has everything needed to call this read-only tool correctly.

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 already documented with the exact same handle format text, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 and resource ('Get the status of a proof') and names the two accepted identifier families (ph_ctl_* / ph_dlg_* handles or verification IDs). It even enumerates the returned states, which cleanly separates it from siblings like validate_proof, revoke_proof, and list_revoked_proofs without opening their schemas.

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 a clear usage precondition (a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY set, restart) and an explicit exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool'), which heads off a plausible wrong path. It stops short of routing the agent to a sibling for adjacent needs (e.g., list_revoked_proofs), so it is context-rich but not fully alternative-aware.

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