liveauth_mcp_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns an invoice via lnurl compatibility and implies a read-only polling nature, but it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or what constitutes a 'status.' This is adequate but lacks rich safety or state-change disclosure.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a specific usage example. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and a hint about the returned invoice. However, it doesn't describe the full status response structure or possible statuses, which might be useful for a polling tool, but overall it's sufficient for the low complexity.

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 100% with the only parameter 'quoteId' described as 'The quoteId from the start response.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already covers it fully, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check the status of an MCP session' with a specific use case ('poll for Lightning payment confirmation'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on status and polling, and the added detail about lnurl compatibility further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 explicitly says 'Use to poll for Lightning payment confirmation,' which provides clear guidance for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the polling context is sufficient for a status tool in a payment flow, making it clear this is the follow-up to start/confirm actions.

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