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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds the useful scope fact that results are limited to the authenticated user's tokens, but omits material behavior such as whether revoked/expired tokens are included and whether token secrets are ever returned.

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 the verb and resource, no filler or restatement of the title beyond what is necessary. Nothing in it could be cut without losing scope 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?

For a zero-param, fully annotated, closed-world read tool the description is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema the description is the only place an agent could learn what a 'token' record contains (metadata vs. secret) and whether results include revoked tokens. Those gaps are modest but real.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The single scoping statement ('authenticated user') is the only semantic available and it is consistent with the empty 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (API tokens) with an explicit scope qualifier ('for the authenticated user'). It is naturally distinguishable from sibling write tools (create_token, revoke_token), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for viewing existing tokens, with revoke_token/create_token handling the other operations. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of relationship to get_usage or sibling token tools, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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