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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the 10,000-record cap, the supported filter dimensions, and a critical auth caveat (needs a Proof account; start_login does NOT open this tool). That last point actively prevents a wrong recovery path an agent would otherwise attempt.

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?

Front-loads purpose, filters and limit in one compact sentence, then a clearly separated ACCESS block. The Claude Code parenthetical adds a little verbosity but carries actionable routing detail, so it largely earns its place.

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 four-optional-parameter read-only export with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what matters: formats, filters, record ceiling, and authentication. It does not mention pagination/truncation behavior when the 10,000 cap is hit, a minor remaining gap.

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% and both enums are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no per-parameter detail (e.g., date format nuances or default behavior) beyond what the schema already states.

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 ("Export authorizations") plus output formats, so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like export_data or list_authorizations, which is the only reason it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear context: use when you need CSV/JSON export with date-range and status filtering, and states the access prerequisite. It never names alternatives such as list_authorizations or export_data for when a plain listing or different dataset is wanted, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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