Setup status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the output boundary and a security guarantee ('Never shows the secret or tokens'). It does not mention that no network call is needed or what happens when credentials are partially configured, but for a zero-parameter local status probe this is strong.

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?

One front-loaded sentence names the two conditions checked and enumerates the returned details, and a second short sentence delivers the confidentiality boundary. No filler, nothing restated from the schema or annotations.

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 input schema, no output schema, and no annotations gaps beyond the standard safety hints, the description carries the whole burden of explaining what comes back and it does so concretely. An agent knows enough to call it and interpret the result without further documentation.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description's field list refers to return values rather than inputs, which is appropriate here.

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-resource pair: reports whether Withings credentials are configured and whether access has been authorized, plus exactly which fields come back (token file location, scopes, minutes remaining). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling auth tools start_authorization and exchange_code, which perform the flow rather than report on it.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the diagnostic step for the Withings auth flow, but the description never says when to call it versus start_authorization or exchange_code (e.g., 'call this first to decide whether authorization is needed'). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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