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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses auth requirements, instructs the agent to authenticate and retry, and clarifies that start_login is not a substitute. It also states 'Returns paginated results.' This goes well beyond the bare 'List HITL configs', though it stops short of describing the exact response shape.

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 front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence, then adds pagination and an access note. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler; the authentication step is presented clearly.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, pagination, and the critical authentication prerequisite. The main missing piece is the exact return format/pagination metadata, but an agent can infer an array of HITL configs, and the schema fully documents all parameters.

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?

All four parameters already have descriptions in the schema (page, limit, status, environment), and the tool description's 'optional filters' only restates that they are optional. The schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies; the description adds no extra semantic meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List HITL configs'), notes optional filters, and states pagination, so an agent understands exactly what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling get_hitl, but the list-vs-get convention makes the scope unambiguous. This is clear, though not maximally differentiated.

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 gives access context ('needs a Proof account', authentication steps, and that start_login does NOT open this tool) but says nothing about when to prefer it over siblings like get_hitl or other list_* tools. The intended use is therefore implied by the action 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.