XMLStock: auth status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe, non-mutating operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that keys are shown masked, missing keys are identified, and instructions for obtaining them are provided. No contradictions are present.

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 two sentences long and every phrase is useful: it states the purpose, the masked output, what to do when missing values are found, and names the companion tool. The front-loaded call-first instruction is prominent without excess wording.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call it, what gaps it reveals, and how to remediate them. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description correctly focuses on the output and usage rather than input semantics. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description satisfies this by explaining what the tool reports.

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 identifies the tool as reporting XMLStock authorization status: which keys are set (masked), which are missing, and how to obtain them. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like xmlstock_set_credentials, which performs the credential-saving action.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool first at the start of working with XMLStock, and prescribes the next step if credentials are missing: request values from the user and save them via xmlstock_set_credentials. This is direct, actionable usage guidance with a named alternative.

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