get_user_domain_verification_status

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new context: the account/auth requirement, the API-key-or-login setup path, and the fact that challenge details are returned. It stops short of describing rate limits or pagination, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose and followed by the access caveat. Every sentence carries weight, though the ACCESS note is somewhat verbose for the information it conveys.

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-only getter with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, return content, and auth prerequisites. The one notable gap is sibling disambiguation, which the description never addresses.

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% and the single session_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or syntax detail beyond it, 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Get the current status of a domain verification session') and adds scope detail ('including challenge details'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like check_user_domain_verification or check_domain_verification, leaving the agent to guess which status-check applies.

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 explains prerequisites (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, or signing in via start_login), which is useful setup context. But it never states when to choose this tool over the sibling status-checkers, so usage guidance is only implied.

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