validate_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool calls /me and reports the role, which implies a read-only check, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it describe error behavior when the token is invalid or the response format for the summary. This is adequate but not rich enough to fully inform an agent about consequences or possible failures.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose ('Check whether HH_ACCESS_TOKEN is valid via /me') is front-loaded, followed by the role report and the usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool (1 optional boolean parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, the parameter effect, and the intended use. It stops short of explaining exactly what the summary contains beyond the role and how invalid tokens are signaled, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity. A score of 4 reflects that it is nearly complete for what an agent needs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% because the 'raw' parameter already has a clear description ('Return the raw /me JSON instead of the summary'). The tool description adds the 'summary vs. raw' distinction in prose, which reinforces but does not extend beyond the schema. With high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and names a concrete resource ('HH_ACCESS_TOKEN via /me'), and adds what it reports (user role). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling data-access tools, which all fetch domain data. An agent can immediately tell this is an auth diagnostics tool.

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 explicitly states a use case: 'Use to diagnose resume-search and ATS access.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but for a standalone diagnostics tool with no similar sibling, this level of guidance is sufficient. A score of 4 reflects the clear context without exclusions.

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