Introspect the authenticated agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool verifies the key and returns identity and other details, implying a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but the nature of the tool (introspection) makes that obvious. It also highlights that it returns a webhook secret, which is sensitive. This is adequate for a simple read operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Verifies the configured API key') and then lists the returned data. It also adds a usage hint at the end. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what it does, what it returns, and when to call it. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke 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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter detail because there are none. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so no compensation is needed. The score reflects the appropriate baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool verifies the configured API key and returns specific data (identity, spending caps, callback URL, webhook secret). This is a clear verb+resource and obviously distinct from the order/delivery siblings. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 first to confirm the key works.' This tells the agent when to use it. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are all transactional operations, so the usage context is clear enough. A slightly stronger statement about when not to use it would push this to 5.

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