check_setup

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing that it checks an environment variable and attempts authentication. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description gives concrete behavioral context about what is actually verified.

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 just two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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 has no parameters, has an output schema, and annotations are present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it checks, and when to use 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 has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter information, and with zero parameters a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 verifies Public.com API credentials, checks the PUBLIC_COM_SECRET environment variable, and attempts authentication. This is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on orders, accounts, and other operations.

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 says 'Run this first to confirm connectivity,' providing clear context for when to use the tool as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a setup validation tool.

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