get_authorization

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, but the description adds meaningful context: it returns status and usage statistics, and requires a Proof account plus PROOF_API_KEY to invoke. It stops short of covering error behavior or permission scopes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 paragraphs: purpose and return value first, then access requirements. Every sentence carries useful information, and nothing is buried or redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return highlights, and access prerequisites. It does not detail status values or usage-statistics fields, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Authorization ID'. The description only repeats 'by ID' without adding format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Get an authorization by ID') and distinguishes itself from list/create/revoke siblings through the 'by ID' scope. It also describes what the response contains: current state, status, and usage statistics.

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?

Provides a clear access precondition: a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY set and server restart. It also explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which is a useful when-not note, but it does not name alternative retrieval tools such as list_authorizations.

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