auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'checks' state but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation with no side effects. It also does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens when not authenticated) or whether the token might be refreshed. This lack of explicit non-destructive or failure-mode detail is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Check') and the resource ('authentication state'), followed by what it returns. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with 0 parameters and no output schema, so the description lists the expected return contents (email, user ID, token expiry), which provides a reasonable picture. However, it omits potential error cases or unusual behavior (e.g., if not authenticated), making it slightly incomplete for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema is empty and the description adds nothing about parameters, which is fine because there are none to describe. Schema coverage is 100% vacuously.

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 'Check' with a clear resource 'authentication state', and further details the contents (email, user ID, token expiry). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools which are all data operations on databases, tables, rows, and fields.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to know the current auth status) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. Since there are no sibling auth tools, the context is fairly clear, but the lack of explicit guidance like 'use this to verify authentication before other operations' leaves it at implied usage rather than explicit.

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