check_auth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific endpoint and verification behavior, which is useful context but does not explain response details or failure handling. With annotations providing the safety baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part contributes essential information about the tool's purpose and method.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function and invoke it correctly. It could add what the response indicates, but the low complexity makes this non-critical.

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 schema has one parameter 'apiToken' with 0% description coverage. The description explicitly mentions 'Toggl API token' and the tool name 'check_auth', making it clear that `apiToken` is the token to verify. This compensates for the lack of schema description, though it does not detail token format or acquisition.

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 'Toggl API token' plus the exact endpoint '/api/v9/me', making it clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ping' (likely connectivity) and 'get_time_entries_for_date' (data retrieval).

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 implies the tool is used to verify a Toggl API token by calling the /api/v9/me endpoint. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to choose this tool over siblings.

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