list_confirmations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful extras: results are paginated, filtering is supported on status and HITL config, and the tool requires a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY configured and a restart. This is real context beyond the annotation.

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 functional purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the access prerequisite is separated into its own labeled block. Slightly verbose on the login caveat but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only list tool with a fully-covered schema and no output schema, the definition covers filters, pagination, and the auth/setup precondition. Return shape is not described, but pagination behavior is disclosed, leaving only minor gaps.

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 page/limit/status/hitl_id are already fully documented in the schema, including the status enum and hitl_id pattern. The description's 'optional filters' phrasing adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List confirmations') and identifies the filterable dimensions (status, HITL config). It's clearly distinguished from get_confirmation/create_confirmation by the plural list framing, but it never explicitly names those siblings to route the agent.

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?

There is no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance; the agent gets no signal on how this differs from list_hitls or get_confirmation, or when a filtered list is preferred. The ACCESS block addresses setup prerequisites rather than selection between tools.

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