verify_auth_key

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: makes one network call, explains the 401-vs-404 routing behavior, and clarifies that success does not indicate test vs. live because Wayl uses a single key for both. This is genuinely useful nuance not derivable from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage context, alternative, and caveats are all covered in a compact format. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands with relevant details without redundancy.

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 diagnostic tool with a rich output schema, the description covers all necessary context: when to use, what it returns, key behavioral caveats, and the alternative. Nothing important seems missing, and the output schema handles return-form specifics.

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, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining what the return communicates (key validity, base URL, default environment), which is more than expected for a no-parameter tool. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: verifying that the configured Wayl API key is accepted. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('API key'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the first diagnostic step when payment tools fail, in contrast to wayl_status for configuration inspection.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: call this first when payment tools start failing to distinguish bad key from request issues. It also names the alternative wayl_status for offline configuration inspection, giving a clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use distinction.

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