verfi_get_claim_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation, 'Requires sessions:search' discloses authorization, and the caveats explain what the tool does not evaluate. It stops short of detailing output shape or failure behavior, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three short sentences with no wasted text, and the primary action is front-loaded. The caveats come after the core purpose without obscuring it.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it identifies what is read, the prerequisite, and key non-use cases. It could be slightly richer by describing the expected response fields or error conditions.

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 verfiID parameter is already documented as a session ID or proof URL. The description does not add further syntax or format guidance, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it reads a web-session's claimMode, claimable, and recording validity. It also distinguishes the tool from claiming and from reservation/buyer-gate evaluations, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings such as verfi_claim_session.

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 clearly says to use this before claiming and explicitly excludes reservation and buyer-gate evaluation use cases. It also states the sessions:search prerequisite, though it does not name verfi_claim_session as the follow-up alternative.

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