auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'live account read', signaling that this is a real network check rather than a cached or local validation. This is useful context beyond the structured 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and target. It uses no redundant words and conveys the essential purpose plus the live-read behavior in a compact form.

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 zero-parameter status check, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (status details, user info, session expiry) or when it should be used relative to other tools. Without an output schema, these gaps make the description slightly incomplete.

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 are no parameter semantics to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('authenticated IMDb session'), so the purpose is clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the focus on session/auth status is distinct from title search, ratings, and watchlist tools, so selection ambiguity is low.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it could serve as a precondition for other account-related tools, nor does it say when not to use it. The phrase 'live account read' hints at behavior but provides no usage policy.

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