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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), the description discloses the 15-minute lifetime, the one-time return of the token, and the critical cascading behavior that child tokens stop working when the parent expires or is revoked. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, followed by the constraint and the lifetime/cascade caveat. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description states what is returned ('the token once'), the lifetime, and the invalidation condition, which covers the essential return behavior. Combined with a fully documented single parameter, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the single param is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: scopes must be a nonempty subset of the parent's permissions, which is a semantic constraint not captured in the schema's array bounds.

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 gives a precise verb+resource+outcome: exchange an authenticated bootstrap credential for a 15-minute access_token. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling credential tools like revoke_credential, rotate_credential, and enroll_agent without needing to name them.

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?

It states the precondition for use (an authenticated bootstrap credential) and the constraint that scopes must be a nonempty subset of the parent's permissions, which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or spell out when-not to use it, so it falls short of the top mark.

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