export_authorizations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an important operational limit (maximum 10,000 records), the output formats, and the access setup, including that start_login will not satisfy authorization. It does not describe return shape or behavior beyond the limit, but it covers the main gotchas.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences cover the core function and filters before an equally tight access note; the ACCESS block is terse but necessary. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 read/export tool, the description covers purpose, formats, filters, record limit, and a non-obvious authentication prerequisite. The main gap is the absence of any statement about the response/return value, but with no output schema and a straightforward export action, this is not critical.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters and their formats/enums (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description only restates that date-range and status filtering are supported; it adds no new parameter-level detail, though the 10,000-record cap is a useful global constraint.

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 the exact operation: export authorizations to CSV or JSON. The supported filters and record cap sharpen the scope, and although it does not name sibling tools, the export format and resource make it clearly distinct from 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 description gives a clear context for calling it: when an export of authorizations with optional date/status filters is needed. It also gives an explicit negative routing note: start_login does NOT open this tool, and a precondition: set PROOF_API_KEY and restart the server. It does not name list_authorizations or export_data as alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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