get_token_status

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description usefully adds the one thing structured data cannot: it never returns the token, and probe actively calls each personal function once. That fan-out behavior is real operational cost an agent should know. It omits expected latency or failure behavior under partial auth, which keeps it off 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then two short clarifying clauses with no filler. Minor leak of an internal field name ('isTokenConfirmed') reads as implementation detail rather than agent-facing vocabulary, but it costs little.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work: it says what is reported (token present, confirmed active, per-right result) and explicitly what is not returned. The precise per-right result shape lives in the probe parameter description, which is an acceptable place for it. Adequate for a two-boolean read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both booleans, including that refresh is ignored. The description reinforces probe's meaning ('which rights answer') but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: report token storage, confirmation state, and which rights respond. The 'rights' enumeration (calendar, lectures, grades, identity, persons) ties it to the sibling personal-data tools without ambiguity. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it reads as clear-but-not-differentiating at the 5 level.

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: 'when probe is true, which rights answer' tells the agent this is a diagnostic/preflight check against the personal endpoints, but the description never says when to call it versus just calling get_grades or get_identity directly. No exclusions or cost warnings are given, even though probing fans out to many TUMonline calls.

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