x_auth_status

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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly notes that the output shape degrades under app-only auth (no user) and includes a note explaining the limitation. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure that helps an agent anticipate different response structures.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and returned data, and the second sentence handles an edge case (app-only auth degradation). It is well-structured and efficient.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It enumerates all categories of reported information, covers the app-only auth edge case, and is supplemented by annotations for safety. Nothing essential is missing for the agent to call the tool correctly.

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, and the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. Per the calibration baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The input schema is an empty object, so there is no additional parameter meaning to convey.

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 ('report') and names the exact resource (auth status for X/Twitter), then lists the precise attributes returned: auth mode, user, OAuth scopes, credential backend, availability, and policy matrix. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools like x_rate_limit_status or x_media_status by detailing what auth-specific information is provided.

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 states what the tool reports but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites, common scenarios, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose, which is insufficient for guiding an agent to choose this over a sibling.

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