zoho_campaigns_auth_status

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It states that the tool checks configuration without revealing secrets, implying it is a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not describe what the return value is, whether it can fail, or if it requires any prior setup.

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 a single, concise sentence. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description might be minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about what 'configuration' means, what the expected output is, and how to interpret the result. More context would improve completeness.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the description is not required to elaborate on nonexistent parameters.

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 'Comprueba la configuración sin revelar secretos' (checks configuration without revealing secrets) clearly indicates a status verification tool. The name 'auth_status' further clarifies it checks authentication. It distinguishes from sibling tools which perform specific actions like bounced contacts or mailing list operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is silent on context such as performing this check before other operations.

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