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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation, so the description is not required to restate safety properties. It adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the returned status details, including security-relevant facts like backup-code count and wrong-code lockout, which is especially valuable given there is no output schema.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the primary status question before listing secondary fields. It could be slightly improved by leading with an explicit verb such as 'Returns,' but it is already tightly structured.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with clear annotations, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what status information is available. The main remaining gap is usage context and comparison to sibling tools, but the core retrieval semantics are adequately covered.

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%, so the single user_id parameter is already documented. The description does not add any further meaning about the parameter, which is appropriate for a baseline score when the schema already does the work.

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 identifies the resource as a user's authenticator app (TOTP) status and names the specific facets returned: confirmation, last use, backup codes, and lock state. It is specific enough to distinguish this from mutation siblings like remove_authenticator, though it does not explicitly differentiate from all related read tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_passkeys, list_devices, get_consent, or unlock_user. The description only lists the information returned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context for invoking it.

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