ozon_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by explicitly enumerating what is not returned (cookies, tokens, phone, name, account ID), which tells the agent this is a privacy-safe probe. It still omits what a negative result looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the check's scope stated first and the disclosure constraint second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 simple zero-parameter probe this is nearly sufficient, and the explicit statement of what the tool will not expose compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, it never indicates what the successful result actually contains (a boolean, a status string, an expiry, which account if a session exists), leaving the return shape entirely to discovery.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description does not waste space restating schema details.

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 verb and resource ('Проверить наличие сессии Ozon и доступность страницы'), so an agent knows it is a status check, not an authentication action. It is distinguishable from siblings like ozon_auth_open or ozon_auth_save by implication of the name plus description, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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: an agent can infer this should be called before attempting authenticated flows, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or what to do if the check fails (e.g., fall back to ozon_auth_open or ozon_auth_save). No alternative is named.

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