Verify Artsonia auth + connectivity

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the network login step, the exact returned keys, and that the hint distinguishes no-creds vs bad-creds vs site-error. That failure taxonomy is genuine behavioral context not present in any structured field.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that packs the procedure, the return shape, the diagnostic value, and the read-only guarantee with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 takes on the burden of describing the response and does so explicitly ({authenticated, transport, student_count} plus a plain-English hint). For a zero-param diagnostic, nothing needed to call 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no syntax to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste space restating an empty 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?

Specific verb chain (confirm credentials, log in, fetch dashboard, report) plus the exact resource and outcome fields. It is unmistakably a diagnostic/auth-check tool, clearly distinct from the data-fetching siblings like artsonia_list_students or artsonia_get_portfolio.

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 implied by the 'healthcheck' framing and the credential-failure hints, so an agent can infer this is the pre-flight/setup verification tool. However, it never states when to run it versus going straight to a sibling, nor what to do with a failure result.

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