auth_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing — no indication of whether it hits the network, whether it validates the supplied API key, or what constitutes a 'valid' vs 'invalid' status. With annotations present the bar is lower, but zero added context earns only a 2.

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 short sentence with no waste and the key concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back — yet it gives no indication of the return shape (boolean authenticated, token expiry, user identity, scopes). For a diagnostic tool whose whole value is the returned status, this is a real gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to describe and the schema is trivially complete.

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 verb and resource ('Get the status of the authentication'), so it is not a bare tautology, but 'the authentication' is vague: it doesn't say whose auth (API key? current session? global system auth state?) or what 'status' comprises. No sibling tool overlaps this name, so differentiation is not the problem — specificity is.

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, no precondition (e.g., 'call before other operations to verify the API key is valid'), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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