check_auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior. It explicitly states the return value (validity and profile access), which is the primary behavioral outcome. However, it does not explicitly mention side-effect-free nature, network usage, or error conditions. For a simple status check, this is reasonably transparent but not exhaustive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately states the output. It contains no fluff or repetition, earning a perfect score.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description completely covers the tool's behavior and return semantics. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns, given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is appropriate given the empty schema.

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 a specific action ('Check') on a specific resource ('current authentication cookies') and defines the output ('whether cookies are valid and can access the GUAP profile'). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate (which establishes auth) and get_my_profile (which retrieves profile data).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used as a precondition for other operations, nor does it explain how it differs from get_my_profile for verifying auth. Usage context is only implied.

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