get_request_by_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the auth prerequisite and the fact that start_login does not grant access to this tool. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'Get.'

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. The access instructions are necessary and each sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential access prerequisite and the lookup key. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear verb and resource, though it would be marginally stronger with a note about the response shape.

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%, so the schema already documents reference_id as 'Your unique reference ID.' The description adds the 'your unique identifier' framing, which reinforces meaning but does not significantly expand beyond the schema.

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 'Get a verification request by its reference ID' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies that the reference ID is 'your unique identifier.' This is precise about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_verification_request.

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 description gives practical access guidance: a Proof account is required, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, the server must be restarted, and start_login does not open this tool. This provides clear context and an explicit exclusion, though it does not compare usage against alternative get/list verification request tools.

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