CTM OAuth Status

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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations and no output schema, the description carries most of the return-value burden and does so by naming the four things reported (stored?, expiry, scope, account id). It does not disclose behavior when no tokens exist (error vs empty result) or any sensitivity around exposing scope/account id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (stored state, expiry, scope, account id) maps to something an agent would want to learn from the call.

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, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-field information an agent needs. The only real gap is the unspecified behavior on the unauthenticated/empty case.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. No description of arguments is needed and none is given.

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+resource ("Reports whether CTM OAuth tokens are stored") and enumerates the inspected fields (expiry, scope, account id). It is clearly distinguishable from the auth_login/auth_logout/auth_exchange siblings by being the read-only status check, 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this before the auth_* family, or what it means if tokens are absent. The diagnostic purpose is only implied by the name and field list, not stated as a usage rule.

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