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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers richly: it discloses the response shape (`authorizations` entries with `channel`, `recipient`, `authorization_id`, `status`), the subtle status semantics ('pending' vs 'active'), and the critical empty-array edge case (means no recipient resolved, NOT everyone authorized). It also discloses the auth requirement and that the message on the empty branch is misleading.

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 long, but every section earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, response-format semantics, and the dangerous empty-array trap are all critical for correct calling. It is front-loaded with purpose and structured into clear sections. Slightly verbose but justifiably dense — 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, the prerequisite step, response format details, status interpretation, the empty-array edge case (which would otherwise cause a hang), and the Proof-account authentication prerequisite. Nothing necessary 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 the single `id` parameter is already documented as 'HITL config ID to request authorization for.' The description does not add meaning beyond the schema — it focuses on behavior rather than the parameter. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verb ('Request authorization') and resource ('a HITL config'), and clarifies it sends consent requests to configured channels. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_confirmation and get_hitl by framing the authorization flow explicitly.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite dependency: 'This must be completed before create_confirmation will work for this HITL config.' It also warns what not to do (relaying `message` on the empty-array branch) and clarifies that start_login does NOT open this tool. Strong when-to-use and when-not-to guidance.

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