get_user_domain_verification_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It frames the operation as read-only status retrieval and adds relevant access constraints, including the need for a Proof account and API key or login session. While it does not explicitly state 'no side effects,' the 'Get current status' wording makes the operation's nature sufficiently transparent.

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 a distinct ACCESS note. Each sentence adds necessary information. The phrasing 'a session opens this tool — then call this tool again' is slightly awkward but still understandable and useful.

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 status getter with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation needs: what the tool does, what it returns at a high level, and what authentication prerequisites exist. It does not describe possible status values or where the session_id originates, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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 only parameter, session_id, is already documented as 'Domain verification session ID.' The description does not add meaningful extra semantics beyond reinforcing that this relates to a domain verification session. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 and resource: 'Get the current status of a domain verification session, including challenge details.' This is clear and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like check_domain_verification or get_verification, relying mostly on the tool name for distinction.

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 note provides concrete usage context: a Proof account is required, and the agent can either use PROOF_API_KEY or go through start_login and then call this tool again. This gives clear preconditions and a sequencing hint, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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