auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it discloses the return shape (identifiers plus a boolean readiness flag) and, importantly, a negative guarantee that the JWT itself and the `.p8` contents are never returned. That is genuinely useful for an agent reasoning about secret handling. It is silent on whether the check performs any caching or token generation side effect, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by return shape and then the safety disclaimer. No filler, no repetition, and the most decision-relevant fact (what it verifies) comes first.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return, and it does ('identifiers and a boolean readiness flag'). Combined with the explicit statement of what is not returned, an agent has enough to call this zero-argument tool correctly. Only the exact identity of the returned 'identifiers' and any failure semantics are left unstated.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail that does not exist.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Verify that the active account can acquire an App Store Connect JWT.' That is far more precise than a tautology and tells the agent this is a credential/readiness probe, not a data fetch. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from nearby auth siblings such as accounts_current or auth_revoke_cache, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied: a caller can infer this is a preflight/health check to run before operations that need a JWT. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g. accounts_current for identity data). Minimum-viable but with a clear gap.

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