get_request_by_reference

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the tool requires a configured Proof account/API key and cannot be unlocked via the login flow, which is actionable information an agent needs before calling. It does not describe error behavior for an unknown reference ID, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two compact elements: a front-loaded one-line purpose and a clearly labelled ACCESS note. Nothing is wasted and the critical constraint is easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition covers lookup and access prerequisites, but says nothing about what a request contains or what happens when the reference ID is unknown. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents reference_id. The parenthetical '(your unique identifier)' essentially restates the schema description, adding negligible new meaning, 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 (verification request) and adds the lookup key (reference ID), which distinguishes it from siblings that key off other identifiers. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with get_verification_request or list_verification_requests, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The ACCESS block gives a real precondition (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY) and explicitly rules out one path (start_login does not open this tool), which is useful negative guidance. It still never states when to prefer this over get_verification_request, so usage is only partially covered.

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