get_verification

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself; it does so by stating the Proof account requirement and that start_login does not grant access. It also conditions the response on verification status ('proof token if verified'). It omits error/not-found behavior, but the core auth and conditional data behavior are disclosed.

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 main action is stated in the first sentence, followed by a compact return summary and a short ACCESS note. Every sentence adds information, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, the required auth setup, and an important non-obvious access caveat. It does not enumerate all possible response statuses or error cases, but it is enough to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already describes the single id parameter at 100% coverage, and the description reinforces that the ID is a verification ID. No additional format, source, or constraints are needed; 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a verification by ID') and clarifies the return payload ('full verification object including status, channel, and proof token if verified'). This distinguishes it from list/request/status siblings at a glance.

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?

It provides explicit access prerequisites ('needs a Proof account', 'Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server') and a clear exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). It does not name alternative lookup tools such as list_verifications or get_verification_request, so routing among siblings is left partly implicit.

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