auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses that the tool is read-only, idempotent, safe to repeat, makes a lightweight verification call, never writes to the audit log, and never mutates credential storage. It even details the error behavior for unsupported platforms. This is exemplary transparency.

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 long but well-organized into clear segments: purpose, usage, behavioral disclaimers, parameters, examples, and return format. It contains minimal redundancy, though 'read-only' and 'never writes to the audit log' are repeated across sentences. Still, every paragraph adds needed nuance, so it's appropriately sized for a tool with no annotations.

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 tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no schema-level parameter docs, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, when to invoke it, its exact behavioral constraints, accepted parameter values, example calls, and the detailed return shape. Even though an output schema exists, the description goes beyond it by explaining success/failure semantics. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema merely defines `platform` as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by specifying allowed values ('reddit' or 'youtube'), the structured error for other values, and example calls. This is exactly the kind of added meaning needed for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read-only check of whether BYOK credentials are already stored and still valid for a platform.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by noting it should be called before `search` and that it does not touch the search API or audit log. The tool's limited scope (verification only) is 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before `search` to confirm credentials are configured and working, or whenever an agent needs to report connection health.' It also explains what it is not for (setting/clearing credentials) and contrasts with remote mutability. This is direct, actionable context for an agent.

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