Auth status

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

The description says check=true renews the token, which is a state-changing operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction because token renewal can write updated credentials to the keychain or file. The useful disclosure that tokens are never returned does not resolve that conflict.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the status content and then explain the optional renewal behavior. There is little waste, and the parenthetical storage locations are useful.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the main return content: whether a session exists, where it is stored, and the last renewal outcome. It does not specify the default value of check or error/no-session edge cases, but it is mostly complete for a one-parameter status 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the check parameter is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the renewal and API-call behavior without adding format, default-value, or side-effect details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource and scope: Somtoday session storage status, storage location, and last token renewal outcome. It is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from identity or data-fetching siblings such as whoami.

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?

It gives a condition for the check parameter, but does not explain when to use auth_status instead of siblings like whoami, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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