Verify credentials

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete details about what the tool actually does at runtime—returns a live profile and follower counts—and why that matters for credential verification. This goes beyond the generic annotation profile.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives concrete use cases. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (live profile, follower counts) and when to invoke it (me/my, credential check). It does not enumerate every possible response field, but none are necessary for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'account' parameter, and the schema already explains the default and how to list accounts. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so a baseline score 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 clear, specific action: 'Authenticate and return the live profile for a connected account, including follower counts.' It also distinguishes the tool by tying it to credential verification and resolving 'me'/'my' references, which no sibling tool description does.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this to confirm credentials work, or when the user says "me" or "my" and you need their handle and DID.' This clearly states when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. Still, the context is unambiguous.

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