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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds value beyond that: it discloses the authentication requirement and the 401-style retry flow, and warns that start_login does NOT unlock this tool — a genuinely non-obvious behavioral caveat. It stops short of describing response shape in depth.

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-loaded with the core action, then the return contents, then the access caveat. Two sentences plus a short ACCESS block; the anti-pattern warning about start_login earns its place, though the ACCESS paragraph is slightly verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (status, usage statistics) and covering the auth prerequisite. Nothing critical to invoking a single-param read is missing; only edge cases (not-found/error behavior) are absent.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents `id` as the Authorization ID. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome.

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+resource ('Get an authorization by ID') and adds what the response contains (status and usage statistics). It implicitly separates itself from list_authorizations and create_authorization/revoke_authorization by emphasizing single-ID lookup, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite (Proof account, authenticate the client, then retry) which is real usage guidance, but gives no when-to-use/when-not against alternatives like list_authorizations or get_verification_request. Usage is implied rather than framed.

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