Get Token Info

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the response is a paginated JSON array with metadata, and that the request must include the token in the header. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 slightly verbose, mixing purpose, endpoint, authentication, and pagination details. While front-loaded with a clear first sentence, it contains redundancy (e.g., 'Return access token details' and 'fetch the full details') and could be more streamlined.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers return format (paginated JSON array of Authentication records) and pagination metadata. Parameters are well-documented in the schema. Authentication requirements are stated. It is complete enough for a simple read-only tool.

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 already fully describes both parameters (page and per_page) with clear descriptions. The description merely echoes this, adding no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Return access token details' and specifies the endpoint. However, the phrase 'specific Authentication records by its identifier' is misleading because the endpoint does not accept an identifier; it returns info about the current token. This reduces clarity slightly.

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 mentions the need for an Authorization header and refers to an authentication guide, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. other authentication tools like get_or_refresh_an_access_token. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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