get_request_proofs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the output content (proof tokens usable for offline verification) and a hard auth gate requiring PROOF_API_KEY and a server restart, which an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action followed by the access constraint. Nothing is padded, though the ACCESS note is slightly clipped in tone.

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 usefully summarizes the return (proof tokens for offline verification), and covers the auth prerequisite. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only sibling differentiation 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% with a single, clearly documented 'id' parameter (Verification request ID). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven params is appropriate.

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: fetching proof tokens for verified assets within a given verification request, and clarifies they enable offline verification. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_verification_request or list_verification_requests, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 a prerequisite and one exclusion: a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY is required, and start_login does NOT unlock this tool. However, it never contrasts this with adjacent proof tools (validate_proof, get_proof_status, revoke_proof) or explains when to prefer it, so usage is only implied.

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