cf_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at output ('status + which it is') but says nothing about whether an invalid token throws, returns an error status, or which token source is checked (env var, config file), nor about rate limits. 'Which it is' is suggestive but vague.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical is terse to the point of ambiguity but the definition is efficiently sized for what it covers.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, and it only partially does ('status + which it is'). For a zero-param verification tool this is minimally adequate, but the shape of 'status' and how failures surface are left to guesswork.

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 document. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter confusion is possible.

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?

Specific verb 'Verify' with the resource 'API token', plus a parenthetical naming what comes back (status and which token). It is clearly distinct from the zone/DNS/cache siblings, though it doesn't explicitly say so.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a credential pre-flight check before issuing cf_request or DNS calls. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of what to do if verification fails.

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