token_validate

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, never modifies state, and outlines all possible outcomes (success, failed checks with reasons, invalid JSON error). With no annotations provided, this description carries the full burden and covers it comprehensively.

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 highly concise, front-loading the main purpose and read-only note, then efficiently covering return formats, error cases, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains all possible return structures (success with token details, failure with reason, invalid JSON error). It fully addresses the complexity, leaving no gaps for an agent to interpret the tool's behavior.

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 already describes the parameter token_json as a 'JSON-encoded SecureToken object (as returned by token_create)'. The description does not add new constraints or examples beyond this, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate the score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('security token'), detailing three validation checks (HMAC/Ed25519 signature, expiration, revocation). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like token_create and token_revoke by specifying its read-only nature.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool ('Call before granting access to any protected resource') and when not to, directing users to token_revoke for invalidation. This provides clear situational guidance.

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