verfi_get_proof

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return content (consent status, interaction metrics, form data, device info, tamper verification) and a meaningful behavioral trait — all PII is SHA-256 hashed. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, permissions, or behavior for missing/invalid session IDs.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by the return payload and the PII-handling note. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly describes the returned fields, and the PII-hashing note covers a key data-handling concern. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to the many sibling tools, which the description omits.

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?

There is a single required parameter, verfiID, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with a format example (VF-a1b2c3d4). The description adds nothing about the parameter, but the schema already carries it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get machine-readable consent proof for a session', and enumerates what the proof contains. It is clear what the tool produces, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like verfi_verify_consent or verfi_get_claim_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus verfi_verify_consent, verfi_get_claim_status, or verfi_search_session. The name implies fetching a proof for an existing session, but no conditions, prerequisites (e.g., session must be completed), or alternatives are stated.

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