check_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core check (login state validity and qualified-investor data unlock), which is useful. However, it does not state what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or what happens if the check fails.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the key contextual detail (qualified investor data unlock). It is appropriately sized and contains no filler.

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 simple zero-parameter auth check with no output schema, the description explains what is being verified but omits what the result looks like and how to act on it. The parenthetical clarifies the gated data, but an agent still lacks return-value context.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description adds no parameter-related detail because none is needed.

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 states a specific verb (验证/verify) and resource (登录态/login state) and adds the context that it checks whether qualified investor data is unlocked. It is clearly distinct from set_token in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to call this tool versus set_token or other siblings. Usage is only implied by the purpose — an agent can infer it checks authentication status, but there is no 'use before X' or 'if invalid, do Y' instruction.

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