Woolworths sign-in status

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that catalogue tools are unaffected by auth state and that cart/purchase-history tools depend on it. It also discloses that the tool reports whether sign-in is possible at all, not just current status.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a relevant scoping note about which tool families are affected. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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 parameterless status tool, the description fully covers what the call reports and why it matters. Since there is no output schema, the wording 'Report whether...' adequately implies a boolean or status-style response, and nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is vacuously 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. It still contributes by framing the no-input call as a session-level status check.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the exact resource being queried: whether this session is signed in to a Woolworths account and whether sign-in is possible. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling sign_in tool, which performs the action rather than reporting status.

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 clear context by explaining that catalogue tools work signed out while cart and purchase-history tools need a signed-in session, which implies when auth_status is useful. It does not explicitly state 'use this before cart tools' or name exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the right moment to call it.

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