check_login

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Live' usefully signals a real network/authentication attempt rather than a cached status, but the description does not disclose side effects (session creation, credential validity handling) or per-store 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?

One sentence of purpose followed by a tightly scoped Args block. Nothing is redundant and the operative constraint (omit for all) is stated plainly.

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, so return values need not be described, and the single parameter plus one-vs-all usage is fully covered. The remaining gap is distinguishing this tool from the login_* siblings, which an agent must infer.

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% and the parameter has no enum, yet the description supplies the exact accepted values ('shufersal' or 'tivtaam') and the semantics of omission (all stores). This is exactly the compensation the schema lacks.

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?

'Perform a live login check for one or all stores' gives a specific verb (check) and resource (login) plus scope (one or all stores). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling login_shufersal / login_tivtaam, but the 'check' vs 'login' framing and the store_id enumeration make the intent decodable.

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 states the two operating modes (pass a store_id, or omit it to check all), which is real usage guidance. However it never says when to use this instead of login_shufersal/login_tivtaam or login_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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