list_authorizations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses pagination, the Proof-account requirement, the need to set PROOF_API_KEY and restart, and that start_login is not a sufficient access path. It does not cover error behavior or response shape, but for a read-only listing operation this is reasonable.

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 compact and efficient: one clear purpose statement followed by a necessary access caveat. There is no filler, and the most important operational warning is separated and easy to act on.

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?

The description covers the main functional behaviors—optional filtering and pagination—plus the critical environment prerequisite. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response envelope could help, but the information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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%, so the schema already documents all five optional parameters in detail. The description's phrase 'optional filters' adds little beyond the schema, keeping this at the baseline score for well-covered parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('authorizations'), adds that filters are optional, and notes paginated results. It is clear about what the tool does but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as list_auth_sessions 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?

The description gives concrete access preconditions: a Proof account is required, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, the server must be restarted, and the tool should be called again afterward. It also warns that start_login does not open this tool, providing a useful when-not signal, though it does not compare against sibling listing tools.

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