check_auth_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it is safe and side-effect-free. The description adds context about what is being checked but does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean or detailed status). This is adequate but not exceptional given the low complexity.

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 two sentences (19 words), front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes value.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for a simple check. It could mention the nature of the return value, but the guidance 'Call this first' suffices for the agent's decision-making alongside annotations.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered per the 100% coverage baseline. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, earning a baseline score of 4 as per rubric.

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 it checks API credentials and profile authentication, distinguishing it from authentication setup tools like setup_credentials and start_auth. The verb 'Check' and specific resources make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first to understand what setup is needed,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. It implies it should precede authentication or data tools, though it does not elaborate on when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives.

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