get_execution_authority

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the tier-gate and backend endpoint disclosure (scout_plus, /api/v1/agent/status), which is genuinely useful pre-call context. It does not say what happens on an insufficient tier (error vs empty result) or how the two authority modes affect subsequent calls, which is the behavioral detail an agent would actually need.

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 compact sentence with no filler, though it front-loads the capability/tier/API metadata ahead of the user-facing purpose, which is the least useful thing to lead with. The endpoint URLs are arguably internal noise an agent cannot act on.

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 5-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description leaves the calling contract underspecified: it does not say whether an unauthenticated call is valid, what the return object contains, or how the three authority states are represented. Given no output schema exists, the description should carry more of the return-shape burden than it does.

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?

All five parameters are omitted from the description while schema coverage sits at 40% — grantId, sessionToken, and executionDomain carry no schema description at all. The one hint ('sessionId... required for futures') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description does nothing to close the documentation gap or explain how grantId vs sessionId vs ownerAddress select different resolutions.

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 (Query) and a well-scoped resource (execution authority configuration), and enumerates the actual model values (USER_SIGNED vs BOUNDED_AUTONOMOUS) plus what else is returned (zero-custody confirmation, delegation status). That distinguishes it from mutation siblings like revoke_execution_authority, though it never names a sibling it is not.

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 statement of when to call this versus verify_delegation, session_key_status, or get_agent_activity — all plausible reads in the same namespace. The 'tier: scout_plus' note is a capability gate, not usage guidance, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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