Validate platform-integration JWT

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds that it returns profile settings including `language` and `ui_labels`, but it does not mention what happens with invalid tokens or any other behavioral constraints, such as rate limits or required conditions.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. Every clause contributes information, and it resists repeating the title or other fields.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage scope, and key response content. It slightly omits what happens when validation fails for an invalid token, but this is a minor gap relative to the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must do the work, and it does: it says the `jwt` must be one previously issued by `generate_jwt`, and connects it to the returned profile. It clarifies semantic meaning and helps an agent construct a valid call, even though it doesn't describe token format.

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 verb and resource: `verify` a JWT. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling `generate_jwt` by focusing on validation, and mentions the meaningful return (`profile` object), leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance by specifying that the JWT must have been previously issued via `generate_jwt`, which tells an agent when this tool applies. It doesn't explicitly describe alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no equivalent validation sibling exists, so this is effective.

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