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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are paginated and that filtering by status and HITL config is supported, plus the auth prerequisite. However, it does not describe the return format, default pagination limits, or any side effects (it is a read-only list, but that is not explicitly stated). Moderate coverage for a simple list 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states purpose in compact form (filters, pagination), and the second delivers a necessary auth/access instruction. No filler or redundancy; both sentences earn their place and are front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry return-format information. It mentions 'paginated results' but does not describe what fields each confirmation contains, sorting behavior, or error conditions. For a straightforward list tool with 4 optional, fully documented parameters, this is a minor but noticeable gap.

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 each parameter already documented individually. The description adds minimal extra meaning by summarizing the filters ('status and HITL config filtering') and mentioning pagination, which maps to page/limit. This is the baseline 3 for full schema coverage; the description does not substantially enrich the parameter semantics.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('List confirmations') and notes it supports optional filters, pagination, status filtering, and HITL config filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_confirmation (singular) and list_hitls (different resource), though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 access prerequisites ('needs a Proof account', authenticate then call again) and an explicit exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). It does not name alternative tools or specify when to prefer them, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool can be invoked.

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