check_token

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does add real context by revealing the underlying call ('calls /me/'), which tells the agent this performs a live authenticated request, but it omits what happens on failure, whether it returns a boolean or raises an error, and any rate-limit or auth caveats.

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?

One short sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the endpoint detail parenthetically attached; nothing is wasted.

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 trivial zero-parameter validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential intent and the mechanism. The only gap is the unspecified return shape on success versus failure, which is minor given 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Check that the current token works') and even names the endpoint hit, so an agent understands it validates the existing credential rather than fetching user data like the sibling 'me'.

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?

Usage is implied - call it to verify the current token is still valid - but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison against related siblings such as 'me', 'auth_url', or 'exchange_code'.

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