list_authorizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds behavior not in the annotations — paginated result shape and hard authentication/setup requirements. No rate limits or failure modes are described, so it stops short of a 5.

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 blocks; the purpose and pagination note come before the setup instructions. The ACCESS wording ('Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server, then call this tool again') is slightly repetitive but each sentence carries information.

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 five-parameter, read-only, filter-and-paginate list tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, pagination, and access blockers. It omits what an authorization record contains and the default page/limit behavior, which would have made it fully self-contained.

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% and two enum parameters are fully enumerated, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only says 'optional filters' without adding meaning (e.g., how filters combine, whether status/channel are conjunctive), so baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('List authorizations') plus scope ('with optional filters') and return shape ('paginated results'). An agent knows what it does, but there is no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as list_revoked_proofs, export_authorizations, or get_authorization.

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?

Gives real preconditions (needs a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, server restarted) and an explicit negative route: 'start_login does NOT open this tool,' which heads off a plausible wrong action. It still does not say when to pick this over export_authorizations or the single get_authorization call.

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