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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=true, leaving the destructive/read-only profile entirely to the description. The description adds real behavioral context ('All actions require authentication') and distinguishes destructive actions (revoke, revoke-others) from the read-only 'list', but never states that revocation is immediate/irreversible or what happens to the current session. Mixed read/write tool with no destructiveHint means more disclosure was expected.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the resource is named first, then the four actions are listed in a scannable form, then the auth prerequisite. Minor inefficiency from the leading indentation and line-break formatting, but no wasted sentences.

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, so the description is not expected to explain returns, and 100% schema coverage handles parameters. However, for a multi-action tool that mixes a read-only list with irreversible-looking revocations and zero destructive annotations, the description leaves the agent without consequence or post-condition information.

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%, so the schema already documents action, token_id, device_name, token_expiry, and account_username with per-action requirements. The description's action parentheticals roughly mirror that mapping and add no new parameter meaning (e.g., expiry format nuances or device_name semantics). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (manage Sanctum access tokens) and enumerates all four actions with parenthetical clarification, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closest sibling agent-api-keys, which is a plausible source of confusion.

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 action enumeration implies when each mode applies, and 'All actions require authentication' sets a prerequisite. But there is no guidance on choosing between revoke vs revoke-others vs switch-account, and no when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing against agent-api-keys or agent-auth.

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