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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable non-schema behaviors: the 10,000-record maximum, the Proof account requirement, and the authentication caveat about start_login. It does not disclose what happens if the limit is exceeded or whether the export has side effects, but it covers the most critical operational constraints.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose and formats appear in the first sentence, followed by filtering and the record limit, then the access note. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler 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?

For a four-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential information: export purpose, formats, filters, record cap, and authentication prerequisite. The main gap is that it does not describe how the exported data is returned (file, content, URL) or what happens over the 10,000-record limit, but the description is still operationally sufficient.

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 fully documents to, from, format, and status. The description only restates that date range and status filtering are supported without adding syntax, defaults, or parameter interactions beyond the schema. This meets the baseline but adds no extra semantic value.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Export authorizations as CSV or JSON.' This clearly distinguishes it from read/list tools like list_authorizations and get_authorization by emphasizing bulk export with format options. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as export_data, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 gives concrete usage context: a Proof account is required, the client must be authenticated via /mcp, and the tool should be called again after authentication. It also explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, providing a useful exclusion. It does not, however, explain when to choose this over list_authorizations or export_data.

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