cdp_check_sso_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Returns whether SSO is required for the user', which implies a read-only operation returning a boolean or status, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'SSO state' entails (e.g., enabled/disabled, configuration details). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds optional parameter context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors) that annotations would typically provide. The output schema likely details return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'username' identifies the user and 'tenant' optionally scopes the check, which clarifies the purpose of both parameters beyond their schema titles. However, it doesn't provide details on parameter formats, constraints, or examples (e.g., username format, tenant ID structure). With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, the description offers basic semantics but lacks depth.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check the SSO state for a given user' with the specific verb 'check' and resource 'SSO state'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on SSO state checking, unlike other tools that handle caching, campaigns, or user management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'get' operations like cdp_get_user, though the SSO-specific focus provides some distinction.

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 usage context by mentioning 'optionally scoped to a specific tenant', suggesting when to use the tenant parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other user-related tools like cdp_get_user or authentication tools), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is limited to parameter usage without broader context.

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