token_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait — this never launches a browser, so it is a safe non-interactive probe — but it says nothing about whether an invalid token triggers a refresh, what permissions are needed, or any side effects.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the capitalized emphasis on the browser-free property aids scanning. Slightly clipped at the cost of missing detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and an undocumented org parameter, the definition leaves key calling behavior (scope of the check, invalid-token outcome) unstated for a tool whose whole value is a quick validity verdict.

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 single 'org' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should explain its meaning and default behavior. It never mentions the parameter at all, leaving unclear whether omitting org checks the current org or all cached orgs.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Check cached SSO token validity'. The 'WITHOUT ever opening a browser' clause implicitly contrasts it with interactive login flows, but it never names a sibling such as login or cache_status to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: you check the token when you want to know if your cached session is still good, and the browser-free constraint hints that it is a non-interactive pre-flight check. There is no explicit when-to-use versus login/refresh_accounts, and no statement about what to do if the token is invalid.

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