generate_auth_header

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It usefully states the algorithm (SHA-512 hash plus Base64 encoding), but it does not explicitly clarify that this is a pure local computation, whether there are side effects, or how parameters interact with the environment fallback beyond what the schema already says.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence identifies the tool's output and scope, and the second explains the core algorithm. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity, two-optional-parameter helper, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. It names the output and the mechanism, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, a small note about the return value being a plain string header value would make it fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema; 'operator credentials' generically covers both parameters, while the schema already documents each parameter and its environment variable fallback.

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 specific verb ('Generate'), a specific resource ('X-Operator-Authorization header value'), and the target context ('PLATFORM API requests'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which deal with payments, wehooks, URLs, and config.

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 clear context: this tool is for generating an auth header for PLATFORM API requests. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the scope is specific enough that an agent should understand when it applies and when it does not.

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