verify_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool makes a read-only online request, lists supported platforms, and mentions that unsupported platforms return 'unsupported'. This is adequate behavioral disclosure for a simple verification tool.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured, with no redundant information.

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 simple single-parameter input and the presence of an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and differentiates from a sibling. It could mention the return values for successful verification, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 covers 100% of parameters (only 'platform'). The description adds value by listing the specific platforms that are supported (Zhihu, Weibo, Knowledge Planet, Douyin) and indicating unsupported behavior, which compensates for the lack of an enum in the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: remotely verify if cached login state is still accepted. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_cookies (local file check) and lists supported platforms, providing specific and actionable information.

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 contrasts with check_cookies and lists which platforms are supported. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for logging in or harvesting), but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

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