check_credential_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: no external API call, queries only the Clavis vault (database + Redis), and specifies the returned fields (validity, expiry, rate-limit headroom, last-used timestamp). This gives a clear picture of the tool's operation and side effects.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, mechanism, and return values. It front-loads the main action and avoids any fluff or repetition.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns, covering all essential aspects without requiring an output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter service_name is well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Check') and a clear resource ('credentials for a service'), and explicitly states the scope ('validity and rate-limit status'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'without making any external API call', separating it from call_service and get_credentials.

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 this is for checking credential status before using a service, and the phrase 'without making any external API call' indicates when to use this over call_service. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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