get_verification_request

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and delivers: it discloses what is returned (the request plus all asset verification statuses) and an auth/setup requirement plus the non-obvious fact that start_login will not unlock this tool. Missing only error/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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by return content and a terse ACCESS note; every sentence carries information. The ACCESS block is slightly disjointed in tone but is not padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return payload, and the account/auth prerequisite that would otherwise cause a failed call. Only failure modes and the exact shape of the nested statuses are left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'id' as the verification request ID. The description's 'by ID' phrasing confirms but adds nothing beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a verification request by ID') and clarifies the lookup key, which implicitly separates it from get_request_by_reference and list_verification_requests. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Gives a real precondition (needs a Proof account; set PROOF_API_KEY and restart) and one explicit negative ('start_login does NOT open this tool'), which is useful. However it never says when to prefer this over the closely related get_request_by_reference, get_request_proofs, or wait_for_request siblings.

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