Verify Ozow credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful context: it authenticates against the Ozow API using stored client ID/secret and has no side effects on data or funds. That 'no changes, moves no money' guarantee is genuinely useful reassurance beyond the annotation, though it slightly restates readOnlyHint.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the safety guarantee as a supporting clause. Nothing is wasted and nothing is missing.

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, no-output-schema verification tool, the description covers what it does, what it needs (configured credentials), and its side-effect profile. An agent has everything required to decide to call it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies that credentials come from configuration rather than being passed in, which is useful framing for an empty schema.

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 and resource: checks that configured client ID and secret can obtain an access token. This is clearly distinct from the payment-oriented siblings (create_payment, get_transactions, cancel_payment), so an agent can tell what this tool is for without inspecting the schema.

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 implies the pre-flight use case (validate credentials before transacting) and the closing clause signals it is safe to call casually. It does not explicitly name an alternative or a 'do not use when' condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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