session_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a list of returned fields, which is largely redundant with the existing output schema, and says nothing about auth requirements, null handling for the default account, or side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with no filler; the resource is stated first and the enumerated contents follow. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though the fragment lacks an explicit verb.

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 an output schema, full parameter coverage, and clear annotations, the description supplies enough for an agent to call this correctly. The only real gap is the absence of any positioning against the many sibling session/account tools.

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% and the single 'account' parameter is already documented as an optional alias. The description adds no additional meaning about format or selection behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('État d'un compte') and enumerates exactly what the status comprises (connexion, numéro, dernière connexion, volume de messages, période couverte). It is clear what the tool reports, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_accounts or session_logout.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The closest thing to a usage cue is the implied 'call this to inspect an account', but nothing states when an agent should prefer it over list_accounts or other session tools.

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