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

With no annotations, the description fully describes the tool's behavior: it validates a token and returns id+email. It also explains token source. Missing details like error handling or what happens with invalid tokens, but overall transparent enough for an auth validation tool.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core function and output, the second provides usage guidance and token source. Extremely concise with no wasted words, front-loading the most important information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers everything needed: purpose, token retrieval, and when to use. It is fully complete for an authentication validation tool.

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?

The schema already gives 100% coverage with a description for the bearer_token parameter. The tool description adds significant value by explaining exactly how to obtain the token (browser DevTools or desktop client), which is crucial context beyond the schema.

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 clearly specifies the tool validates a Mediora.AI patient Bearer token and returns the patient id and email. It uses a specific verb+resource pair, distinguishing it from all sibling tools that are for analysis, explanation, or lookup.

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?

Explicitly states to use this tool first to confirm the token before calling other auth-gated tools, providing clear timing and purpose. It also explains how to obtain the token, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it, but the context makes it obvious.

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