:

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Check') but does not specify return format (boolean vs. status object), error behaviors, or whether the check refreshes/extends the session. Minimal but accurate behavioral disclosure.

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?

Extremely efficient at 9 words. The single sentence immediately conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy or filler. Information density is optimal for the complexity level.

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 lack of output schema, the description should ideally disclose what constitutes a valid vs invalid session and what return value indicates this. For a simple state-checking tool with no parameters, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks return value semantics.

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 contains zero parameters. According to scoring rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. There are no parameters requiring semantic elaboration beyond 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 action ('Check') and resource ('local OpenEvidence session'), specifying exactly what validity is being verified. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools (oe_ask, oe_article_get) which operate on content versus 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 description provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool (e.g., before other oe_* calls, after authentication errors) or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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