get_request_proofs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses an access requirement (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, server restart) and clarifies that start_login does not grant access. This is meaningful auth-related context, though it does not cover error behavior or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses only a few targeted sentences. The access block is compact and every sentence adds necessary operational context without padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what the tokens are for, and the required setup. An agent can reasonably invoke it given the schema and this description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter as a Verification request ID. The description does not add extra meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('proof tokens for verified assets in a verification request'). It also clarifies that these tokens support offline verification, which distinguishes this tool from siblings like validate_proof or get_proof_status.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant: when proof tokens from a verification request are needed for offline verification. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the access note about start_login being insufficient is useful routing information.

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