verifyapi_get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates the tool retrieves details and mentions 'in progress' status, suggesting a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, authentication needs, or behavior with invalid reference IDs, which is a moderate gap.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key functionality.

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 has no output schema, the description mentions 'channel-by-channel delivery status' but lacks specifics on the exact response fields or format. For a simple status retrieval with one parameter, this is mostly complete but could be more detailed about return values.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single required parameter 'reference_id' described as 'Reference ID from verifyapi_send_otp'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'details about a verification process'. It specifies the action of checking current status including channel-by-channel delivery, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like verifyapi_send_otp and verifyapi_check_code.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check the current status of a verification', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though sibling tools are implicitly differentiated.

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