get_meta_auth_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It valuably discloses a security trait ('Never returns tokens or secrets') and the read-only nature of a status check, but it does not state whether the call has side effects, what authentication (if any) it needs itself, or what the actual return values look 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 with the capability stated first and the security guarantee second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description should characterize the returned state more precisely (boolean, enum of states, or next-step guidance). It conveys the gist of the answer but leaves the response shape undefined, which is a real gap given no output schema exists.

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 disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter misinformation is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') plus a specific resource ('Meta login' status) and states the two conditions it resolves: needed vs. completed. It implicitly separates itself from start_meta_login in the sibling list, but never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 deduce it should call this before authenticated Meta operations and call start_meta_login to begin a login. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must supply the routing logic itself.

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