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 behavioral disclosure — and it delivers by specifying the exact return contract in both states ({ connected: true, userId, accountId, businessId, email, expiresAt } vs { connected: false }) and asserting it is 'safe to call anytime.' It also explains what the returned IDs mean for downstream tools, giving the agent a workable mental model without any annotation safety cues.

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 organized into labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS connected, RETURNS no session, NEXT STEPS) with no wasted sentences, and the lead sentence's summary and front-loaded. The formatting is scannable, important for an agent parsers, and every section adds new information rather than repeating the schema.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the no-argument case, the return shape in both success and failure states, and the follow-up action for each branch. Any complexity that would otherwise need structured fields is already handled in prose.

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 the baseline is already 4. The description additionally states 'TAKES NO ARGUMENTS — safe to call anytime,' explicitly confirming to an agent that no arguments are required and removing any doubt about invocation. Nothing is left for the schema to explain.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Check whether FreshBooks is connected and return the active session details.' This is unambiguous against the sibling set (auth_get_url, auth_exchange_code, auth_revoke), whose purposes are distinct. The NEXT STEPS section further reinforces its role as a status probe, not an auth flow mutator.

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 explicitly states WHEN TO USE: call first in any workflow, when the user asks about connection state, and to diagnose auth errors. It also gives the exclusion and routing by naming the alternative directly: 'If connected: false → call auth_get_url to start OAuth.' This gives an agent deterministic selection guidance.

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