get_verification

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries real added weight: it discloses the auth prerequisite (needs a Proof account, set PROOF_API_KEY and restart) and clarifies that start_login does not grant access. It also describes the return contents, useful since no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and return contents, then layers the presentation warning and access requirement. Three short paragraphs with no filler, though the mid-paragraph UX aside is longer than strictly necessary for tool selection.

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 read-only single-param getter with no output schema, it covers auth setup, return shape, and the user-facing presentation caveat. It lacks any statement of error behavior for missing/invalid IDs, a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 ('Get a verification by ID') and previews the returned payload (status, channel, proof token). However, it never distinguishes itself from the many similar retrieval siblings such as get_multi_channel_verification_status, get_proof_status, or wait_for_verification.

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 workflow guideline about surfacing the actionable link/SMS to the user before calling, which is real context. But it offers no guidance on when to choose this over wait_for_verification or the multi-channel status tool, and the 'challenge you created' phrasing leaves the triggering condition implicit.

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