Get Domoticz OAuth login status

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by revealing that the status may be incomplete and requires polling — a behavioral trait not in annotations. However, it doesn't describe what a 'complete' status looks like or any error conditions, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 sentences with zero padding. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter polling tool with rich annotations (read-only, idempotent) and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It captures the core behavior and next action. Minor omissions like specific status values or authorization requirements are likely covered by the output schema and sibling context, so the description suffices without being exhaustive.

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 description fully covers the only parameter flow_id ('Opaque flow identifier returned by start_oauth_login'), so the description doesn't need to add param details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't provide additional parameter meaning beyond what's already in the schema.

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 'Check a browser login' states a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'Retry the original operation only after status is complete' clearly ties it to the login flow initiated by the sibling tool start_oauth_login. This distinguishes it from all other siblings and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use it: to check status and only proceed after completion. It implies the prerequisite of starting a login flow via start_oauth_login, though it doesn't name that tool directly. The guidance is clear for the immediate call pattern, but doesn't address alternative tools or failure handling, so it's slightly below perfect.

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