Verify Crown Town Compost auth + connectivity

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing the exact error.kind taxonomy (no_credential, credential_rejected, session_expired, edge_blocked, timeout, transport, http) and explaining that edge_blocked means credentials were never judged. It also explicitly states the credentials are never returned, which is meaningful security context an agent cannot get from 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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the happy path and return shape come first, the failure taxonomy second. The enumerated error kinds are long but each term earns its place by disambiguating a distinct failure hop.

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 carries the return contract itself, listing {authenticated, account_status, service_addresses} and the error.kind values. Nothing an agent needs to interpret a success or failure result 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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; the description correctly adds no param claims. It does name the conceptual inputs (configured credentials, optionally a supplied session cookie) that drive the outcome, which is useful framing even though there is nothing to bind.

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 names a concrete diagnostic verb chain (confirm credentials, log in, fetch dashboard, report status) on a specific resource, and its framing as a healthcheck separates it cleanly from the data-fetching siblings like crowntown_get_dashboard and crowntown_get_account.

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 purpose is inherently diagnostic and the failure taxonomy implies 'use this to triage auth/connectivity problems,' giving clear context for selection. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings (e.g. 'call this first' or 'use when other tools return auth errors'), so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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