get_hitl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the auth requirement (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY) and the fields returned. This is real value beyond the annotation, though it omits error/not-found behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return fields, then a separate ACCESS block for the prerequisite. Well-organized and mostly waste-free, though the quoted access note is slightly verbose.

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 single-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and auth prerequisites. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly; only edge cases (invalid ID) are unaddressed.

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% with a single 'id' parameter already documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (get) and resource (HITL config), and 'by ID' implicitly distinguishes it from the list_hitls sibling. It also previews the return shape (channels, timeout, status). However, it never names a sibling explicitly, so the CRUD-family differentiation is only implied.

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 prerequisite (needs a Proof account, set PROOF_API_KEY, restart) and a when-not hint ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). But it never states when to prefer this over list_hitls or get_hitl_keys, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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