token-details

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

Despite no annotations, the description clearly discloses a key behavioral trait: it does not return bearer values. It also implies a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not mention auth requirements or other side effects, which are likely minimal.

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with verb and resource. Highly efficient.

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?

While the tool has no parameters and is simple, the description lacks details on what specific metadata fields are returned (e.g., issuer, type, expiration). Without an output schema, the agent may not know the structure of the response.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage trivially, baseline is 4. No parameter info is needed beyond what the schema provides, and the description adds no confusion.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Show', resource 'token metadata', and qualifier 'safe without returning bearer values'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like okta-browser-harvest-tokens which likely return bearer values.

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?

Description implies use when needing token metadata without exposing bearer values, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. No guidance against using other informational tools like whoami or userinfo.

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