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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful behavior: the authorization is only a request until the user approves, and authentication is required. It does not disclose the result of a successful call, error conditions, or side effects beyond creation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, permission semantics, approval behavior, access prerequisite, and a clarifying exclusion about start_login. The access note is front-loaded after the core purpose and is not padding.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the high-level lifecycle and authentication prerequisite but omits the return value/success response and next step after creation. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds business context (channel-specific permissions, approval requirement) but no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new authorization request' and explains that authorizations permit sending confirmations via a channel. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling request_hitl_authorization, so it misses the top bar.

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 gives clear context: the tool is for creating an authorization that requires user approval before confirmations are sent, and it must be preceded by Proof account authentication. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use statements beyond noting start_login does not open this tool.

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