get_api_token_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the tool is implicitly scoped to the calling server's own token (no targeting argument) and enumerates the metadata fields returned, implicitly signalling that the secret token value itself is not returned. It doesn't mention failure modes when no token is configured.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then adds the scope and return fields with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the returned fields (name, creation date, expiry). What remains unsaid is minor: error behavior when the server has no token, and whether expiry may be null for non-expiring tokens.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly makes clear that no arguments are needed by tying the resource to 'this server', removing any expectation that a token identifier must be supplied.

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 ('Get') plus a specific resource ('API token details') and scopes it to 'the API token this server is using', which separates it from the many sibling get_* tools that target accounts, aliases, domains or labels. It also enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what comes back.

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 use case is implied clearly by the resource name and the 'this server is using' scoping, but the description never states when to prefer this over other inspection tools or any prerequisite (e.g. that a token must exist). For a zero-parameter read tool with no obvious alternative, implied guidance is adequate but not exemplary.

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