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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation ('Get', 'Returns the current state'), discloses the access requirement, and notes the authentication step. It doesn't overpromise or hide side effects; for a getter this is sufficient transparency.

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?

Three dense sentences: the first defines the operation and return data, the second gives the access prerequisite and concrete authentication steps, the third eliminates a common wrong path (start_login). No fluff 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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content (status and usage statistics) and the access prerequisite. It doesn't describe where the authorization ID comes from, but the sibling list_authorizations implies the discovery path. Minor omission, otherwise complete.

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%, with 'id' described as 'Authorization ID.' The tool description adds no further meaning about the ID format or how to obtain it. Since the schema already documents the only parameter, the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Get an authorization by ID.' It distinguishes itself from list_authorizations (which lists all) and revoke_authorization by clarifying it returns the current state, not a mutation. The scope is unambiguous.

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 provides clear operational context: requires a Proof account, instructs the agent to authenticate first and then call again, and explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool. It doesn't name alternatives like list_authorizations for finding IDs, but it gives actionable preconditions and an exclusion.

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