Check authentication and site status

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by listing the exact response fields (authenticated, expires_at, current_site_id, etc.) and clarifying its role in the authentication flow. It doesn't describe error behavior, but for a read-only status endpoint this is adequate given the annotations already signal no destructive 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?

The description is two sentences: one listing the returned fields and one providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, contains no redundant phrasing, and every sentence adds essential information.

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 simple read-only status tool, the description is complete. It names all return fields, states the purpose (checking authentication before other calls), and the output schema is available to detail types. There is no missing critical information for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the description clarifies the meaning of the tool's output fields, which serves as semantic context. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and that fits here.

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 'Returns the current login state' and enumerates the exact fields returned, such as authenticated, expires_at, current_site_id, and api_url. The verb 'Returns' combined with the resource (login/site status) is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like pushengage_auth_login and pushengage_auth_logout.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to check whether pushengage_auth_login is needed before making other calls.' This provides clear usage context and directly ties to an alternative tool (login), making it easy for the agent to choose between them.

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