auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool never asks for or returns passwords or tokens, may establish a session using environment credentials, and returns specific shapes (authenticated=True with username, or authenticated=False with guidance). This is rich, honest behavioral context.

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 longer than a single sentence, but every line earns its place: purpose, security guarantee, credential source, session behavior, return values, and usage timing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured in readable short paragraphs.

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 fully specifies return values, the conditions that produce them, and the follow-up guidance the agent should convey. There are no missing required behaviors.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing further is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb—report—and a clear resource: whether a Bhoonidhi login is configured for downloads and cart. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_status and cart_list by focusing on authentication readiness, and the closing instruction 'Call this before download or cart actions' makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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 to call this before download or cart actions to tell the user if a login is needed, and it gives concrete fallback authentication methods ('bhd auth login' or environment variables). It does not enumerate exclusions or explicitly compare against sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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