auth_status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it clarifies that `authenticated` merely means a token is set while `token_accepted` reflects a live FamilySearch check, notes the ~1 hour token lifetime, and discloses that the server ships no client id. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by clarifying details and a docs pointer. It is appropriately sized for a small diagnostic tool, though the three-paragraph layout is slightly more than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining the return semantics, and it does so by defining `authenticated` vs `token_accepted`, the token lifetime, and the client-id prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to interpret and act on the result.

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 the schema provides the full parameter picture and the description has nothing to add. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, with no compensating gap to fill.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reports whether credentials are configured and what is missing, and further names the two returned signals (`authenticated`, `token_accepted`). This is plainly distinguishable from every sibling, which all fetch genealogy data rather than report auth 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 implies this is a diagnostic check but never states explicitly when to call it (e.g. before other tools, or after an auth failure) or how it relates to sibling tools. It does supply the prerequisite that production access requires your own registered FamilySearch application, which nudges usage, but there are no when/when-not directives.

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