Verify credentials and upstream reachability

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds further context: it never returns the credential, makes exactly one authenticated request, and distinguishes 'no credential' from 'credential rejected' from 'clientsecure.me-side problem.' No contradiction with 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 compact and well-structured: action, outputs, safety, and usage each get focused sentences. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with safety-related annotations, the description fully specifies what it does, what it reports, and when to use it. It even supplies the failure-hint semantics that would otherwise be missing without an output schema.

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, so there is no parameter documentation burden and schema coverage is effectively complete. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter meaning is needed.

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 states a specific diagnostic action: resolves the credential, makes one authenticated request to clientsecure.me, and reports credential source, acceptance, RTT, and a plain-English failure hint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which perform real operations rather than diagnose the connection.

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 explicitly says to call this 'when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' This gives the agent a clear trigger condition and implies the alternative—using the actual SimplePractice tools—without ambiguity.

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