status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about cookie persistence across session types, which explains potential differences in authentication state. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a message), whether it has side effects beyond verification, or what happens if the user is not authenticated. It gives some behavioral insight but not complete 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and supplementary context in the second. There is no redundant language or filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and behavior.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but leaves a gap: it does not describe the return value or format. For a status verification tool, an agent would benefit from knowing whether the response is a simple boolean, an object with details, or an error message. The description implies verification but omits this detail, making it incomplete for fully autonomous use.

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 the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to explain. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('authentication'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like login, logout, and get_bonvoy_status. It immediately conveys that the tool checks authentication state, and the added cookie context clarifies the scope of what is being verified.

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 a clear use case—checking whether a user is authenticated—and the context of session/cookie handling gives relevant background. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like login or logout, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intent is clear but not fully explicit.

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