require_recent_auth

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that Kiln Enterprise is required, but it does not explain the result semantics, what happens if auth is stale, whether it is read-only, or any failure behavior.

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 core check is front-loaded in one sentence, but the following enterprise/upgrade marketing text adds promotional clutter beyond what an agent needs to invoke the tool.

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 an authentication gate with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return behavior, failure conditions, and how tenant/provider/max-age affect the check.

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 description never mentions provider, tenant_id, or max_age_minutes. Schema coverage is only 67%, and tenant_id has no schema description, so the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a specific check: whether the person behind the call signed in recently, which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling auth tools such as sso_status or kiln_signin, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It frames the tool as a "step-up check" but gives no explicit guidance on when to call it, when not to call it, or which sibling auth tool to use instead. The enterprise requirement is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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