Who am I

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable context about what the call reports (token identity, validity, permissions, expiry, server, SDK, API version), going beyond the bare annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states what the tool reports, and the second gives the primary usage context. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 no-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It communicates both the content of the report and when to use the tool, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 the schema is empty and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, no parameter explanation is required; the description's field list relates to the return payload rather than inputs.

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 names a specific verb ('Report') and a precise resource: the identity behind the configured token, including type, validity, granted permissions, and expiry, plus server, SDK, and API version. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create posts, manage comments, or fetch insights.

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 instruction 'Run this first to diagnose auth problems' is an explicit usage directive that tells the agent when to invoke this tool. Since no sibling tool serves the same diagnostic purpose, no alternative exclusions are necessary.

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