Check session status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that verification happens live against the bank rather than trusting the stored session file, and it reveals the return field 'authenticated'. It does not discuss latency, rate limits, or failure modes of the verification call itself, leaving a small gap.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, verification method, pre-call trigger, false-branch consequence). No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content; it names ownership, freshness, and the 'authenticated' flag, which is enough for an agent to act. It stops short of enumerating all response fields or describing the freshness metric's units or thresholds.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description needs to compensate for. No misleading parameter references are present.

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 ('Reports whether there is a usable Banco General session') plus what the report contains (ownership and freshness). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bg_login_start and bg_login_otp because it is a read-only status probe rather than a login step.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this before asking the user for credentials'), an explicit exclusion (don't ask first, they may already be logged in), and a documented branch action ('If it reports authenticated: false, log in before answering anything about the accounts'). It also explains why the alternative path exists (data tools have nothing to read and will fail).

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