asc_token_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact credential resolution order (config.toml asc_* keys as env, else the asc keychain profile) and explicitly states the live call is read-only, plus how success is proven. It omits failure modes and what a failed check reports, keeping it below 5.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the credential-resolution caveat and success proof following. The parenthetical is dense but earns its place by describing real resolution behavior; nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is somewhat compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers what is checked and how credentials resolve, which is adequate for a no-arg diagnostic tool; only failure/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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, and the schema confirms an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.

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 precise verb ('Check') and a specific resource (App Store Connect auth via the asc CLI), then enumerates exactly what is verified: binary presence, credential source resolution, and one live read-only call. An agent can distinguish it from asc_list_apps or the various doctor tools without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use it ('check ASC auth'), and the success criterion (`asc apps list --limit 1` proving key id, issuer and .p8) gives a concrete validation context. However, it names no alternatives despite many overlapping siblings (asc_sbp_check, config_doctor, env_doctor, setup_credentials), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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