migros_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Report" implies a read-only probe, but the description does not state whether it requires an authenticated session, whether it makes live network calls that could fail or be slow, or what the resulting state values mean. The presence of an output schema covers return shape but not behavior.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the enumerated subjects. It is efficient, though the enumeration is a bare list that leaves key nouns unexplained.

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?

Complexity is low (no parameters) and an output schema exists, which lowers the bar considerably. Still, for a diagnostic tool in a ~90-tool sibling set, the description never says what question this tool answers or when to reach for it, leaving the agent without enough to select it reliably.

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 no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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?

"Report environment, gateway, device identity and login state" names concrete subjects and a reporting verb, so the general idea (a diagnostic/status probe) comes through. However, the terms "environment" and "gateway" are undefined, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like my_profile, migros_endpoints, or migros_request, which also expose session/identity-adjacent data. An agent can guess it is a health check but cannot be confident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus my_profile (login state) or migros_endpoints (gateway/environment). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of whether login is required first. Only implied usage can be inferred from the word "status".

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