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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires a Proof account, explains the authentication step, clarifies that start_login is insufficient, and notes paginated results. It does not mention rate limits or default page size, but it is substantially more informative than the annotations alone.

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 the core action in the first sentence, then adds access requirements compactly. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 five-parameter, no-output-schema list tool with readOnlyHint=true, the description covers the key missing context: authentication requirements and pagination. It omits nothing critical for invocation, though it could clarify default sorting or whether the filters combine with AND logic.

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 all five parameters are documented in the input schema. The description only says 'optional filters' and 'paginated results,' which adds almost no parameter-level detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 clear verb+resource ('List authorizations') and adds scope ('optional filters', paginated results). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_authorization or export_authorizations, which also deal with authorizations.

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 an important access prerequisite (needs a Proof account, authenticate, start_login does not open this tool), but does not say when to use this list operation rather than get_authorization, export_authorizations, or other sibling retrieval tools. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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