auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it explicitly discloses that the tool reveals no tokens, cookies, or passwords, which is exactly the safety-relevant behavior an agent needs to know before calling. It could go further on whether the call has side effects (it implies a pure read) but the disclosure is a genuine value-add beyond structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the safety-relevant caveat. Zero filler.

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-param status tool with an output schema (which presumably documents the return shape), the description is complete enough: purpose and safety posture are covered. Minor gap: it doesn't state that the call is side-effect-free/read-only, which would help an agent reason about retries.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed; there is nothing further to specify.

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 precise verb and resource ('Report whether ... authenticated and which auth mode is active'). An agent can immediately distinguish this read-only status check from mutation siblings like set_token, set_cookie, and login.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and purpose — use it to discover current auth state — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. No exclusions or preconditions are stated, though the tool is simple enough that heavy guidance is less critical.

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