Verify credentials and upstream reachability

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: it makes a live outbound request, it never returns the credential itself, it reports the credential's source, round-trip time, and a hint that separates 'no credential' from 'rejected' from 'server-side problem'. That error taxonomy is exactly the context an agent needs to interpret the result.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what it does before when to call it. Every clause carries information — credential source, acceptance, timing, error hint, non-disclosure — with no restatement of the title or filler.

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 carries the burden of describing the response, and it does so well by enumerating source, acceptance, latency, and the error-distinguishing hint. Nothing needed to call or interpret this diagnostic tool is missing.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a zero-argument invocation by describing the whole operation as parameterless.

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 concrete two-step action (resolve the credential, make one authenticated request to api.alpharoute.app) and a concrete output shape. This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, which fetch portal data or mutate settings.

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?

"Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke" is an explicit trigger condition tied to the failure mode of sibling tools. There is no stated when-not and no alternative diagnostic named, but the framing already scopes it to diagnostics rather than routine data access.

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