Verify API credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the success return shape and the diagnostic context. It does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., whether it returns false, throws, or exits non-zero), which is a minor gap given the tool's diagnostic purpose.

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 wasted words. Purpose, success return, and usage guidance are all included and front-loaded.

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 auth check with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, success return, and primary use case. The only missing detail is the failure response format, which would be useful when diagnosing 401 errors but is not critical for invoking the tool.

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 description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the schema or description to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('Websupport API key and secret'), and defines the success outcome ('Returns {verified: true} on success'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get/list tools, which retrieve data rather than test authentication.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first when diagnosing 401 errors,' giving a clear trigger condition. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but no sibling performs auth verification, so the guidance is sufficient.

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