Check LINE Token Validity

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it warns in Thai when less than 7 days remain, describes the 401 error scenario, and clarifies the return shape. No contradictions found.

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 concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and provides all necessary details in a few sentences. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient for agent 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the input, behavior (thai warning, error handling), and return shape. Annotations cover safety. No gaps remain for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 (oa) has a schema description stating it's optional and defaults to active OA. The tool description does not add further parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states it verifies the active OA's channel access token and reports bound client_id, remaining lifetime, and granted scope. This purpose is unique among siblings (no other tool checks token validity), so it effectively distinguishes itself.

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 advises running before a campaign to avoid silent failure from mid-send expiration. It also explains the 401 error for invalid/expired tokens. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives, which would elevate to a 5.

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