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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already indicating a non-destructive write, the description adds useful behavior: the authorization requires user approval, confirmations cannot be sent until approved, and authentication is required. It does not cover idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if an authorization already exists.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact explanation of approval workflow and a clearly separated ACCESS note. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 9-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow, and authentication prerequisites well. It could be stronger by describing the immediate return behavior or how to check approval status afterward, but the core invocation context is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 9 parameters, including formats, enums, defaults, and limits. The description adds only high-level context about sending confirmations via a specific channel and does not provide additional parameter-level syntax or constraints.

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: 'Create a new authorization request.' It then explains what an authorization does and its approval workflow, making the tool's role clear relative to sibling tools such as revoke_authorization, list_authorizations, and get_authorization.

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 states the prerequisite context clearly: a Proof account is required, the client must be authenticated, and start_login does not open this tool. It also implicitly explains when to use it by saying authorizations must be approved before confirmations can be sent, though it does not explicitly compare against all alternative authorization or confirmation tools.

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