simplepractice_session_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the three ways a practice can be determined (sign-in link, SIMPLEPRACTICE_PRACTICE, stored session) and the no-network-call guarantee. No output schema exists, so the description reasonably carries the return-content burden, though it doesn't say what is reported when no session exists.

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-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the determination-source detail. Every clause adds information and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what is reported and where the answer comes from. The only gap is the no-session/empty-state behavior, which an agent might want to know to avoid misreading a negative result as an error.

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 the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or obscure.

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 specific verb ('Report') and resource (Client Portal session status) and enumerates exactly what is reported: whether a session exists, which practice, and how that was determined. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sign_out, request_sign_in_link, and verify_sign_in_token.

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?

The description establishes clear context for when to call it (checking session state before deciding whether to sign in or sign out) and adds the constraint that it reads local state only. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition.

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