panelica_2fa_get_v1_2fa_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the required OAuth scope 'accounts:write' and the exact HTTP endpoint. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, HTTP method, category, required scopes, and read-only status are each on their own line. Only 'Category: 2FA' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the overall overhead is minimal and highly scannable.

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 parameterless read-only status check, the description covers the essential invocation details: endpoint, HTTP method, auth scope, and safety profile. It does not describe the response structure, but with no output schema and a self-describing 'status' resource, this is a modest rather than a blocking 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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema and context signals fully cover parameter semantics.

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 provides a concrete verb and resource ('Get 2FA status') and reinforces it with the explicit HTTP endpoint. It is clearly distinct from the sibling 2FA mutation tools (enable, disable, verify), though it does not explain what the returned status payload looks like. The core phrase largely repeats the title, but the added endpoint and scope lines make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the 2FA enable/disable/verify siblings, nor any prerequisite conditions. It only labels the category as 2FA and states read-only, leaving the selection decision mostly to inference.

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