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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond the annotations: no document processing occurs and the call costs nothing, which matters for credit-accounting agents.

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 tightly packed sentences: the capability and returned fields come first, the cost/side-effect reassurance second, and the raw endpoint (GET /auth/v1/info) last. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers cost and side-effect behavior for a zero-parameter read-only tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing input syntax.

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 ('Check the connected Doxis AI.dp (Klippa DocHorizon) API key') and enumerates exactly what is returned: organization, project, credential id, and enabled services. This is unmistakably distinct from the capture/convert/validate siblings, which all process documents.

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 situational context: it does not process a document and costs nothing, which tells an agent this is a free diagnostic call safe to run before spending credits. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit exclusions, but the context is actionable.

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