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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses pagination behavior, an account requirement, and that start_login won't open this tool. It doesn't mention response shape or explicitly say read-only, but 'List' plus the details provided are sufficient for a safe read operation.

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?

Two concise sentence groups front-load the core purpose and pagination, then provide the actionable ACCESS note. Every sentence adds useful information with 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 list tool with no required parameters and fully documented optional inputs, the description plus schema allow correct invocation. It covers auth and page-based results, though it omits the response envelope and default pagination values — minor gaps given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes all five parameters. The description only restates 'optional filters' and paginated results, adding no meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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: 'List authorizations with optional filters.' The pagination note adds scope. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like export_authorizations or get_authorization, so it stops 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 around authentication: 'needs a Proof account', 'Authenticate this client...', and warns 'start_login does NOT open this tool.' However, it doesn't explain when to choose this over get_authorization, export_authorizations, or list_auth_sessions, so usage vs alternatives is mostly implied.

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