mail_auth_status

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 a key safety behavior ('without exposing tokens') and enumerates the returned information. However, it does not state whether authentication itself is required to call this endpoint, whether it has side effects (it clearly does not), or any rate limits. For a read-only status check this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary output (authentication status) and lists key details, ending with a security-relevant behavior (without exposing tokens). No fluff, no redundancy.

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-input status-check tool, the description covers the main return values and the token-safety guarantee. It doesn't mention error cases or whether auth status implies the caller is authenticated, but for a simple status check this is near-complete. A 4 reflects the minor gap of not explaining what 'next login action' means or side effects.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has no obligation to explain inputs. Per calibration, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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 names a specific resource ('mail authentication') and the exact information returned (status, expiry, unexpected-scope warnings, next login action). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mail_list_attachments or mail_search_messages, which operate on mail content rather than authentication state.

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 purpose implicitly signals when to use the tool (when you need auth state), but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to siblings. For a status-check tool with zero parameters, the context is largely self-evident, but a mention of typical use cases or prerequisites (e.g., 'call after auth failures') would help.

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