get_authorization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool requires server-level API key configuration, that it returns the current state, and that browser login via start_login is insufficient. For a read-only getter, this is meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic 'get by ID' phrasing.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact and relevant access note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant wording.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, and lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (status and usage statistics) and the access prerequisites. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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?

There is only one parameter, id, and the schema already describes it as 'Authorization ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema fully documents the parameter. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get an authorization by ID' and clarifies the returned data is the current state including status and usage statistics. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_authorizations, which would return multiple authorizations rather than one by ID.

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 provides clear context on when the tool can be used by stating that a Proof account and PROOF_API_KEY are required. It also explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which is an important exclusion that prevents a common misuse. It does not name sibling alternatives like list_authorizations, but the access guidance is strong enough.

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