export_authorizations

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses the 10,000-record cap and the authentication prerequisite with a negative instruction about start_login. What it omits is how results are delivered (file path, stream, or URL) and what happens when the cap is exceeded.

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, capability, and the record cap are front-loaded in one tight sentence, and the access prerequisite is cleanly separated. The budget is well spent, though the restart instruction is operational noise an agent cannot act on within a session.

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 should say what an export returns and how to retrieve it, which it never does; pagination behavior at the 10,000 cap is also unstated. Access and filtering are covered adequately, but a data-export tool leaves the delivery mechanism to inference.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and enums on format and status, the schema already documents every parameter including ISO 8601 date formats. The description only restates format and filter concepts, adding no syntax or default information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('Export authorizations'), states the output formats (CSV or JSON), and lists the filter dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'export_data' or explain why one would export rather than call 'list_authorizations'.

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 a genuine prerequisite (a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY set, server restart) and even rules out a wrong path by stating start_login does not unlock this tool. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over 'list_authorizations' or 'export_data', nor any exclusion criteria for the filters.

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