get_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses an automatic internal token refresh (a side effect an agent should know about), but omits whether authentication is required, whether the returned value is sensitive secret material, and whether calls are rate-limited or cached.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero redundancy. It could be tightened further, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the return-value burden. It gestures at the token structure but never describes what is actually returned or whether the token is a live credential that must be handled carefully.

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 is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the base-URL override. The description adds nothing about this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve a Malipo API access token. This is clearly distinguishable from the payment/installment siblings, which all deal with transactions rather than credentials. No explicit sibling routing is given, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

"Use this to verify your API credentials and see the internal token structure" gives one implied use case, but there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. does it require existing credentials?), and no mention of alternatives. Usage is inferable but thin.

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