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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: it returns no personal data or secrets, the Supercines account is optional (public rates otherwise), and 'configured' does not guarantee the provider has not revoked the session — a caveat an agent could not derive from the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource being reported, followed by the optional-account note and the reliability caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the Supercines pricing aside is only loosely tied to the core status-reporting purpose.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it instead spends its space on the interpretation caveat that matters most. The remaining gap is guidance on what to do when the status reports unconfigured or revoked, which would make the definition complete rather than merely accurate.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is added or needed.

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 names a concrete resource — the Cinex, Cines Unidos and Supercines session states — and says it also reports the next connection step, so an agent knows this is a status/readiness check rather than a connect or disconnect action. It is clearly distinct from siblings like connect_account and disconnect_account, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call it to learn whether sessions are active and what to do next, and the mention of 'siguiente paso de conexión' hints at routing to a connect flow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite ordering (e.g. check before get_ticket_prices), and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the trigger.

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