get_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 7-day expiry window and that a browser login (not an API token) is required, which shapes what the agent should tell the user.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the usage trigger as the closing actionable clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a zero-parameter, read-only auth check with full annotation coverage, the description provides everything needed: what it checks, why it matters, and when to call it.

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?

There are no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to explain inputs, and it correctly stays silent on them.

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 (Check) and resource (Schwab login validity/expiry), and adds the domain constraint that Schwab requires a new browser login every 7 days. No sibling tool overlaps with authentication status, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it: 'Call this first if other tools report authentication errors.' That is a concrete routing condition tied to a failure mode of the sibling tools, which is exactly what usage guidance should do.

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