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

No annotations provided. The description discloses that it decodes without verifying and flags specific issues, but lacks details on error handling, return format, or behavior for malformed tokens.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the action and includes specific flags. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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?

No output schema. The description mentions flags but does not specify how they are returned (e.g., separate fields, list of warnings). For a security audit tool, return structure is important context.

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?

Only one parameter 'token' with no schema description. The description implies the token is a JWT, but doesn't elaborate on format (e.g., three dot-separated base64url parts). Adequate for a simple parameter.

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 clearly states it decodes JWT headers/claims without verification and flags specific security issues (alg=none, missing exp, privileged roles), distinguishing it from siblings like jwt_decode and jwt_verify.

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 description implies security auditing use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like jwt_decode or jwt_verify. No guidance on when not to use it.

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