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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not the only source of safety information. It adds value beyond them by naming the underlying GET endpoint and describing the exact response fields, though it says nothing about rate limits or what is returned (or thrown) when the token is invalid or expired.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the returned fields and the raw endpoint. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the four fields. It falls slightly short of complete because the failure mode (inactive/expired token) is not described, which is the main scenario an agent would be checking for.

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; baseline is 4. The description correctly conveys that no input is required.

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 pairs a specific verb (confirm/check) with a specific resource (the UpKeep API token) and enumerates exactly what is returned: company id, token name, creation and last-used timestamps. It is unambiguous and cannot be confused with any sibling list/get tool, which all operate on domain entities like work orders or assets.

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?

The purpose — verifying that a token is active — implies when an agent should reach for it (before other calls, or when diagnosing auth failures), but that is left for inference. There is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to, or what a sibling alternative would be.

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