Check Control D connection

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds value by explicitly guaranteeing the token is not revealed and by indicating the tool reports account capabilities. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates action, result, and a key limitation. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 this is a simple token-validation/connection-check tool with no inputs and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and top-level result. A little more specificity about what 'account capabilities' includes or error behavior on invalid tokens would make it even stronger.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The description compensates by clarifying what the tool does with the implicitly provided token and what it returns conceptually.

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 a specific action ('validate the token') and a distinct outcome ('report account capabilities'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that list, create, or modify resources. The added 'without revealing the token' also sets a clear boundary.

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 communicates a clear context of use: validate authentication and inspect account capabilities before or while working with other tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none are necessary given the unique purpose of a setup/connection check.

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