Verify Luma connection

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already indicate a safe, read-only operation dependent on external configuration. The description adds that the tool validates a preconfigured API key and returns the authenticated user, but it does not disclose failure behavior when the key is missing or invalid, or what exactly the authenticated user object contains.

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 entire description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant detail or filler.

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 parameter-less, simple verification tool with read-only annotations, the description fully explains its purpose and expected outcome. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly without additional 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete with 100% coverage and no parameter descriptions are needed. The description adds context about what is being verified, satisfying the baseline for parameter-less tools.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('configured Luma API key') and clearly states the result ('return the authenticated user'). It is easily distinguished from the sibling CRUD tools, none of which perform connection or credential verification.

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 clearly establishes this as the tool for checking Luma connectivity and authentication, which is distinct from all sibling operations. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but no sibling tool offers this capability and the intended use is obvious from the context.

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