verify_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what is checked and when, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, describe the output shape, or disclose any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with what the tool checks followed by when to run it. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 single-parameter diagnostic tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies the key lifecycle context: when to run it and what it verifies. It could go further by stating the response format or explicitly noting the operation is non-mutating, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the token parameter is already described in the schema as 'Your agent token (starts with tc_)'. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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 verb 'Check' plus the resource 'your setup' is specific, and the description enumerates the exact dimensions covered (token validity, permissions, interests, rate-limit usage). This clearly distinguishes verify_setup from narrower siblings like validate_token and get_rate_limits.

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 provides explicit timing guidance: run once after receiving the token and any time the feed seems empty. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools, but the trigger conditions are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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