sfc_verify_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work: it declares read-only semantics and discloses the auto-discovery order (division 1 then 17). It omits what a failure looks like, whether the parcel probe has any side effects, and any auth/latency considerations.

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 clauses with the read-only qualifier and fallback order front-loaded, no filler. It is efficiently sized for what it chooses to say.

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 zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what a result means (pass/fail, error vs boolean) and whether the probe is side-effect free. Those gaps matter for a diagnostic tool an agent will call before other operations.

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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only adds the concrete discovery sequence behind 'auto-discover', which is genuinely extra meaning but thin overall — consistent with the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 gives a concrete mechanism (probe ship types for US with a small parcel) and flags it as read-only, but never explicitly states the actual goal — verifying credentials/connectivity. Because it talks about ship types, an agent could easily mistake it for sfc_list_ship_types or sfc_credential_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus sfc_credential_status or sfc_list_ship_types. The only conditional ('unless divisionId is set') describes internal fallback behavior, not invocation guidance.

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