Vérifier le token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming what is returned, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication failure handling, or any other behavioral details beyond the safe 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 compact sentence that front-loads the purpose, states the returned data, and includes the HTTP endpoint. Every part earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return values: company, subscription, and site quota. It is complete enough for a simple GET /me call, though a bit more detail about the response shape or error cases would make it fully exhaustive.

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 there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameters. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states a clear action and resource: it verifies the token and returns the linked company, subscription, and site quota. This goes beyond the title and makes the tool's purpose concrete, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like getEntreprise or getCompanyInfo.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as getEntreprise or getCompanyInfo. The use case is only implied by the endpoint /me and the token-focused wording, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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