get_verification_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses authentication requirements, the need to set PROOF_API_KEY and restart the server, and explicitly notes that start_login does not grant access to this tool. For a read-style operation, this is meaningful behavioral context, though it could additionally state side-effect-free behavior or not-found behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds a practical access note. The access block is slightly verbose but each sentence carries relevant setup or exclusion information. No unnecessary filler is present.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity—one required parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema—the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the authentication prerequisite, and a non-obvious access limitation. It is not exhaustive because it leaves sibling-tool relationships implicit, but it is sufficient for a simple by-ID lookup.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter, id, with the description 'Verification request ID.' The tool description only repeats that it fetches by ID and does not add format, example, or relationship details, so it sticks to the baseline.

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 a verification request by ID,' and adds a concrete detail about the return value ('with all its asset verification statuses'). It is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely named siblings like get_verification or get_request_by_reference.

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 description implies usage context: use this when you have a verification request ID and need its asset verification statuses. It also communicates a clear precondition—needing a Proof account and PROOF_API_KEY—and warns that start_login does not enable this tool. However, it never names alternatives or explains when another verification-related tool should be chosen instead.

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