describe_mcptoken

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. 'Get ... metadata' implies a safe, read-only introspection call, and the description usefully enumerates what is returned (field definitions, relationships, admin configuration). It does not state whether any auth/permission level is required or whether the output is static or tenant-specific.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and the three categories of content returned. No filler, no redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information, and it adequately sketches the return contents for a zero-parameter introspection tool. It could add a note on output format or stability, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 of 4 applies. No parameter claims are made or needed.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (the MCP Token model) plus the exact scope of metadata returned: field definitions, relationships, and admin configuration. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling resource tools like describe_author/describe_article, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_mcptoken or list_mcptoken, which sound adjacent.

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: the tool is for inspecting the model's shape, which an agent would infer is a prerequisite step before building queries. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_mcptoken/list_mcptoken or any noted prerequisites.

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