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

It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: tokens expire in 15 minutes and are restricted to the requested scopes. However, it does not disclose whether the exchange invalidates existing tokens, requires prior authorization, or has other side effects, and the annotations provide little behavioral detail.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and then states the two key constraints. Every word adds information, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves gaps: no output schema exists to explain the token response format, and scope value semantics are underexplained. An agent would need external context to invoke this confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says the token is 'restricted to requested scopes.' It does not explain what values scopes accepts, where to obtain valid scopes, or how scopes map to token permissions.

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 names a specific action ('Issue') and a specific resource ('token'), and adds two distinctive constraints: a 15-minute lifetime and scope restriction. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like delegate_authority or rotate_credential.

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 does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as delegate_authority, rotate_credential, or enroll_agent. The intended context is only implied by the name and the description, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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