login_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: direct requests only with no relay, a non-obvious side effect (one GitHub release GET, cached at ~/.searchts/update-check.json, once per 24h, opt-out env var), and an explicit 'nothing is installed or changed'. The epistemic caveats ('proves a login wall is absent, not which account', 'expiry is only an upper bound') prevent over-reading results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and almost every sentence carries information, but it reads as a dense run-on with no visual structure. The 24-hour rate limit is stated twice in adjacent sentences, and the update-check mechanics could be condensed considerably given they are secondary to the login verdict.

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, yet the description still names the result states and their caveats, and both parameters are semantically covered despite 0% schema documentation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description supplies real meaning for both fields: url is the site whose cookies are used, and check_url substitutes a custom page for the built-in known page while still drawing cookies from url's site. That relationship is precisely the non-obvious part. Minor gap: no URL syntax/format expectations.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('read one signed-in-only page with the saved cookies, once') and enumerates the three possible verdicts. It also draws an explicit boundary against the sibling check_url, so an agent can differentiate without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the exact routing rule: reddit/linkedin/github/x use a known account page, other sites require a signed-in-only URL, and a public page yields 'unknown'. It also states the negative conditions (captcha, block, network error) that must not become a guess, which is unusually explicit guidance.

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