get_proof_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the possible statuses, clarifies that a live proof reads 'active', and warns about authentication requirements. It does not describe behavior for unknown IDs or edge cases, but this is adequate for a simple status 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the access warning in a separate paragraph. Every sentence contributes useful information with 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 one-parameter read-only-looking tool with no output schema, the description fully covers input format, return statuses, and authentication setup. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 description merely repeats the schema's parameter description. It does not add new meaning beyond the structured field, so the baseline score 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?

States the exact operation (get status of a proof), the resource it applies to (public handle or verification ID), and the specific statuses returned. This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like validate_proof or revoke_proof, which perform different actions.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance: the caller needs a Proof account, must set PROOF_API_KEY, and must restart the server. It also warns that start_login does not open this tool, which is a useful exclusion. It does not explicitly compare against other proof-related tools, but the context is clear enough.

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