get_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 effectively describes key behaviors: the tool retrieves an access token, automatically refreshes internal tokens, and serves for credential verification and token structure inspection. It doesn't mention side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics, but covers the core operational behavior adequately for a simple retrieval 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 extremely concise (three sentences) with zero wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct value: the core function, an important behavioral detail (automatic refresh), and usage context. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently structured.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, key behavior (automatic refresh), and primary use cases. For a simple token retrieval tool, this provides sufficient context, though it could benefit from mentioning response format or error handling.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter ('address') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'refreshes') and identifies the resource ('Tunzaa access token'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on authentication tokens rather than payment/installment operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other authentication-related tools since none are listed among siblings.

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 provides implied usage context ('verify your API credentials', 'see the internal token structure'), suggesting this is for authentication validation and debugging. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., whether to call this before other operations) or any exclusion criteria. The mention of 'refreshes internal token automatically' hints at a maintenance use case but isn't framed as explicit guidance.

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