Check Yandex 360 auth status

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the tool actively *probes* each service, that `credential` names the token type and never its value, that `identity` is unknown for IAM tokens, and that `organization` name only appears when the token holds the directory:read_organization scope. It does not mention rate limits or probe failure modes beyond `detail`.

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?

Front-loaded with a single-sentence purpose, then a compact field-by-field breakdown using backticked names. No filler; every clause describes a distinct output field or its conditional behavior.

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 fully carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so field by field including the conditional `organization` name and the per-service `valid`/`detail` shape. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result is missing.

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 per the baseline the schema carries no semantics to add. The description instead documents the response fields (`credential`, `identity`, `organization`, `services`), which is where the practical meaning lives for this call.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource set: 'Report whose token this is, its organization and which services accept it.' That is concrete and unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate from the near-identical-looking '*_me_get' siblings (tracker_me_get, wiki_me_get, forms_me_get) that also answer identity questions, so an agent must infer the distinction from name alone.

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 by the tool name and the 'Report...' phrasing — an agent can reasonably infer this is a credential/auth diagnostic. There is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g. before other 360 calls, after a 401) and no named alternative to use instead.

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