Verify credentials and upstream reachability

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it makes exactly one authenticated request, reports the credential source and acceptance, never returns the credential, and distinguishes failure categories. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and avoids any contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: what action is performed, what is reported, read-only/credential safety, and when to call it. There is no filler, repetition, or schema duplication.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool. It covers purpose, behavior, output contents, safety properties, and invocation timing. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke and interpret this 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 tool has zero parameters, with schema coverage at 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed, but it does explain what the tool does with its implicit credential input, which is contextually relevant.

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 specific verb ('resolves', 'makes', 'reports') and a concrete resource (api.honeybook.com), and clearly frames the tool as a credential/upstream healthcheck. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are operational actions like list_messages or pay_invoice.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' This clearly tells an agent when to use it, though it does not enumerate exclusions or name alternative diagnostic tools if any exist.

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