get_login_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the base expectation is lower. The description adds valuable context by explaining that it inspects active session cookies loaded from Chrome, which clarifies the mechanism and reinforces the non-mutating nature. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra detail that helps an agent trust the tool.

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, focused sentences: the first gives the core purpose, the second adds essential detail about cookie source and specific providers. No filler, no redundancy, and the critical action is front-loaded. The structure earns top marks for efficiency.

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 single optional parameter, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (making return-value documentation unnecessary), the description is complete. Annotations already cover safety and idempotence, and the description specifies exactly which providers and reward programs are checked. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 covers the 'provider' parameter 100%, including its default and allowed values. The description mentions the same providers and reward types but does not add semantics beyond what the schema already states. Since high coverage reduces the need for description-level parameter info, baseline 3 is appropriate; there is no additional value.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('authentication and VIP/Member reward status'), and further enumerates the exact platforms and reward types (Agoda VIP tiers, Booking.com Genius, Hotels.com OneKey). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'interactive_login' by focusing on status inspection rather than authentication actions, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 implies its use case (verify current login/reward status by reading cookies) and that it is non-intrusive, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over interactive_login or mention exclusions after login failures. It gives clear context about checking sessions without logging in, but lacks an explicit 'use this for X, use interactive_login for Y' disclaimer, so it falls short of a 5.

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