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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that it is a status check – it does not mention possible session states, whether sessions expire, or what the response looks like. With no extra disclosure beyond the annotations, the description contributes minimal value.

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 extremely short and free of fluff, but it is close to a restatement of the tool name and title. It is concise but under-specified; it does not add enough information to justify a higher score.

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?

The tool is simple and annotations plus schema cover safety and parameters, but there is no output schema and no explanation of what session statuses may be returned or how to interpret them. The description lacks usage context and expected result semantics, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool confidently.

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% for the single optional parameter, and the schema provides a detailed explanation of account_link_id including when to omit it and when to provide it explicitly. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but because the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Check work24 session status.' It is clear that this tool queries session state for the work24 provider, and the name/prefix distinguishes it from sibling session-status tools for other providers. However, it provides no detail on what 'status' means or what kinds of results are returned.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention using it after login, before other work24 operations, or how it relates to work24__auth__npki_session__login or other session-status siblings. The agent is left to infer the proper invocation context.

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