validate_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check if valid'—it does not explain whether an invalid token returns a boolean, throws an error, or what side effects (if any) occur. It does not even clarify the meaning of 'valid' (e.g., expiry, format), which is critical for a validation tool.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundancy, earning full marks for brevity and structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error message) and any conditions for validity. Without this, an agent cannot reliably interpret the result. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete in critical behavioral aspects.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single `token` parameter with a description ('Base64url-encoded token to validate'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does all the work.

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 action ('Check if a handover token is valid') and identifies the resource ('handover token'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like prepare_handover, which creates or prepares the token, though it does not explicitly mention that distinction.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be called before proceeding with a handover or what to do with the result, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and context.

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