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

Annotations only say readOnly=false and destructive=false. The description goes far beyond that: it discloses delivery semantics (the response carries no link to show), the returned `authorizations` shape with per-field meanings, the distinction between `status: 'pending'` and `status: 'active'`, the trap that an empty array means no recipient resolved (not everyone authorized), and a warning not to relay `message` on that branch.

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?

Long, but nearly every sentence earns its place and the critical point (read the array, don't trust `message`) is front-loaded within the agent-usage block. Slightly verbose but well-structured rather than padded.

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 fully carries the burden by describing the return payload (`authorizations` entries with `channel`, `recipient`, `authorization_id`, `status`, plus `message`) and its edge cases. It also flags the auth prerequisite. Nothing needed to call 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 coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as 'HITL config ID to request authorization for'. The description adds no additional syntax or format meaning for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies even though the schema does all the work.

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: 'Request authorization for a HITL config.' The scope is clear enough to separate it from siblings like create_authorization, create_confirmation, and create_hitl, whose names alone would otherwise be ambiguous.

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 states the ordering dependency: it 'must be completed before create_confirmation will work for this HITL config', and tells the agent it may proceed 'once the user confirms they have approved'. This is exactly the when-to-use context needed.

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