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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral trait that token material is not returned, which is useful for an agent to know. However, it does not mention authentication requirements beyond the parameter description, which is in the schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with purpose. No filler. Very efficient.

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 tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean or status), which could be important for an agent to interpret the result. It also does not mention any error conditions. However, the simplicity of the tool mitigates this gap.

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%, with the parameter described as 'Optional fallback Astrologos MCP token. Prefer Authorization: Bearer.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it rests at baseline 3.

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 clear verb 'Validate' and a specific resource 'Astrologos token'. The qualifier 'without returning token material' clarifies it's a non-revealing check. It distinguishes from siblings, none of which relate to token validation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for checking token validity, but does not state exclusions or alternatives. The sibling tools are about jobs and usage, so context is minimal.

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