validate_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool makes a call to /me and returns the user role, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or describe error behavior (e.g., what happens with an invalid token). The behavior is implied but not fully elaborated.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage context provided immediately. Every word 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?

The tool is simple: one optional boolean parameter, no output schema. The description explains the purpose (validate token, report role) and the usage context (diagnose resume-search access). It does not describe error handling or the exact response format, but for a validation tool this is not a critical gap; an agent can infer the outcome from the description.

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 only parameter, 'raw', has a clear description in the schema: 'Return the raw /me JSON instead of the summary.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('HH_ACCESS_TOKEN via /me'), and a clear purpose ('diagnose resume-search access'). It also identifies the output (user role). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_vacancies or get_resume, which are about querying data rather than validating auth.

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 explicitly provides a use case: 'Use to diagnose resume-search access.' This gives the agent clear context on when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention any circumstances where the tool should not be used, or alternatives to consider, though no obvious alternative exists for token validation.

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