UserAuthCheckAuthToken

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations already provided. It does not mention what happens for invalid tokens, whether it returns a boolean or throws, or any authentication or rate-limit considerations. The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations cover safety, but the description itself contributes little beyond the core purpose.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is so brief that it sacrifices helpful context.

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 does not clarify what kind of response the agent should expect when checking a token. It also omits the surrounding auth flow context, such as whether this is a preliminary check or a full session validation, making it incomplete for reliable invocation and result interpretation.

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 needed to compensate, but it only says 'an auth token' with no direct explanation of bodySessionToken. It adds minimal semantic connection to the parameter but no details about optionality, format, or how the token is supplied.

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 a specific action ('Check whether') and a specific resource ('an auth token is valid'). It goes beyond the tool name by describing the outcome of the operation and is clearly distinct from sibling login operations like UserAuthLoginPupil or UserAuthLoginTeacher.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after login or before accessing protected resources. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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