Auth: Digest/DigestAuth Success

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the request depends on state written by a prior call (global variables echo_digest_realm and echo_digest_nonce) and targets an external Postman Echo host, which is exactly the kind of ordering/state dependency an agent needs to know. It stops short of saying what happens on failure (e.g. 401), which keeps it from a 5.

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 core behavior and the precondition are front-loaded and clear, but the second paragraph repeats the dependency already stated in the first, and the trailing parenthetical with method/URL duplicates information plus a documentation link containing a typo ('gloval-variables'). Roughly a third of the text is redundant or noise.

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 only needs to explain the request's mechanism, its state dependency, and its target — all of which it does. The only meaningful omission is failure behavior (what a non-200 looks like), which is minor for a demo endpoint whose whole purpose is returning 200.

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 for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies all inputs come from ambient global-variable state rather than arguments, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 states a specific action and outcome: it sends a hashed Digest Authorization header to obtain a 200 OK response, and it names the exact endpoint (GET https://postman-echo.com/digest-auth). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'DigestAuth Request' by being the follow-up success case, though the name 'success' alone would not have made that clear.

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?

It gives one concrete precondition: the previous request 'DigestAuth Request' must have been run so the realm and nonce are stored in global variables. That is genuinely useful. However, it never frames when an agent should call this versus the sibling auth tools (basic auth, oauth1 signature) — the usage is implied by the demo scenario rather than stated.

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