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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: the new token is shown only once (a non-recoverable disclosure), and admin scope 'can manage tokens' is a privilege escalation detail an agent must know before choosing scope. Annotations only cover the mutation/safety profile.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its prerequisite, with no filler. Slightly compressed to the point that the expiry wording omits the per-scope default rule, but nothing is wasted.

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 token-minting mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical facts: prerequisite admin token, one-time display of the secret, and scope/expiry choices. Complete enough to call correctly, though it omits whether minting is reversible or what happens to existing tokens.

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%, so every parameter including default resolution rules ('admin 90d, publish never') is already documented. The description restates the enum values but adds nothing new for `label` or `ownerToken`; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Mint a new profile token') plus the prerequisite actor (admin token). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling bind_token, which is the one tool an agent could confuse it with, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear calling context: you need an admin token, and scope/expiry defaults are spelled out. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to the alternative bind_token, so exclusions are missing.

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