get_token_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a safe read-only operation via 'check', but does not describe the return format, potential error states, rate limits, or any side effects, which is insufficient for a tool without structured metadata.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Check') and the object ('current token status and expiry'), making it immediately scannable and free of 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 tool with no output schema, the description gives only a minimal sense of purpose. It fails to explain what 'current token status' encompasses or what the response will look like, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior and output.

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 the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and nothing here detracts from that baseline.

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 uses the verb 'check' and specifies the resource as 'token status and expiry', which clearly indicates a read-only information query. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_token' by focusing on status/expiry rather than token retrieval, though the referent of 'token' remains somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_token' or the create/report siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual selection cues.

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