Poll a Proof Request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the result carries a proof id and attestation once the request settles, and mentions an unusual delivery mechanism ('the way Fermah returns a proof to a Seeker callback URL'). However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens when the request is still pending, or any error/timeout behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second elaborates on the result, and the third adds a meaningful qualifier about human involvement. It is concise with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description gives some context (result carries proof id and attestation) but lacks details on pending-state behavior, error handling, or a concrete return structure. The cryptic reference to 'the way Fermah returns a proof to a Seeker callback URL' adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 only parameter (requestId) with its description 'id returned by submit_proof_request'. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters, so per rubric the baseline of 3 applies when the schema handles the load.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Check a Proof Request.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_proof_request (which creates the request) and market_state (which likely checks broader market conditions) by focusing on a single proof request and its settlement outcome.

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 after submitting a proof request, but does not explicitly say 'use this after submit_proof_request' or contrast with alternatives. The schema's parameter description ('id returned by submit_proof_request') hints at the dependency, yet the main description lacks overt when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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