auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'check,' which implies read-only, but it does not state whether the tool makes network calls, what 'valid' means (e.g., expiry checks), or what the output looks like. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral insight.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Check' and immediately specifies the resource. It is concise and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter utility.

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 has an output schema (so return format is covered), but the description does not place the tool in the broader workflow of the sibling tools. It lacks guidance on when to invoke it relative to playlist operations, making it minimally complete but with a clear gap in usage context.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameter semantics. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the subject (OAuth credentials) without adding unnecessary detail.

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 verb ('Check') and resource ('OAuth credentials') and clearly conveys the tool's purpose: verifying credential configuration and validity. It is distinct from sibling tools, which all focus on playlist/inventory operations, making this a unique utility.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using it before making authenticated calls or setting up credentials. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer context.

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