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 real behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated, filters combine status and HITL config, and it pre-empts a common failure mode by stating start_login does not authenticate this tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with filters and pagination following immediately. The ACCESS paragraph is longer but every sentence earns its place by preventing an auth dead-end; only the repeated 'needs a Proof account' framing is slightly redundant.

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 correctly notes paginated results and the filterable dimensions. Auth prerequisites are explicit, parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the tool is a simple read-only list, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and every parameter (page, limit, status, hitl_id) is documented in the schema with type, enum, and pattern constraints. The description only reiterates that status and HITL config are filterable, adding no syntax beyond the schema.

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 ('List confirmations') and adds scope detail: optional filters, paginated results, and status/HITL filtering. This distinguishes it from the singular get_confirmation and from list_hitls, though it never names a sibling directly.

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 ACCESS block gives concrete operational guidance: a Proof account is required, the client must be authenticated via /mcp, and notably that start_login does NOT grant access to this tool. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over get_confirmation or wait_for_confirmation.

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