check_auth

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations: it discloses the authentication mechanism (QA_MCP_STORAGE_STATE session) and the failure semantics (bounce-to-login indicates expired session). It does not describe what the report format looks like, but that is partially an output-schema concern.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the diagnostic purpose then the trigger condition. Every clause earns its place — no filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 2-param read-only diagnostic with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, how it authenticates, and when to reach for it. No output schema exists, but the description adequately frames the result (whether the page bounced to login).

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?

Schema coverage is 100% — both parameters are fully described in the schema (url with allowlist/http-https constraint, wait_for enum with default). The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific diagnostic verb ('navigates with the configured QA_MCP_STORAGE_STATE session and reports whether the page bounced to a login-looking path') and clearly names what it distinguishes from siblings — it's not an extraction tool but a session-health probe. An agent can tell it apart from extract_semantic_dom or session_extract without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use when extractions unexpectedly return login forms instead of the requested page.' This gives a concrete trigger condition that routes the agent here rather than to a re-extraction. No alternative tool is named, but the trigger is unambiguous.

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