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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely important context beyond that: the plain-text token is only returned once, warning the agent to capture it immediately — a behavioral fact absent from structured fields.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the operation stated first and the critical one-time-return caveat immediately after.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover everything needed to invoke it correctly, and the one-time-return note covers the key return-value concern. Minor gaps remain around token scope or expiry, but nothing blocking.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'name' as a descriptive label. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the 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 ('Create') and resource ('API token'), making it unambiguous against siblings like list_tokens and revoke_token. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is clear from the name and description.

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?

Usage is implied by the obvious create semantics, but there's no explicit statement of when to use this versus revoke_token or list_tokens, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or token limits.

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