auth_status

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: token_accepted asks FamilySearch, authenticated only means a token is set, tokens last about an hour, no client ID is shipped, and production access requires a registered app.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only essential caveats about token lifetime, the distinction between authenticated and token_accepted, and production requirements. Every sentence is useful and no space is wasted.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the key returned concept token_accepted and what authenticated means. It also covers setup prerequisites and the external call scope, so an agent has enough information to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter information.

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: report credential configuration status and what is missing. It also explains the token_accepted behavior, making it clearly distinct from the data-retrieval sibling tools.

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 makes the context of use clear: checking configured credentials and optionally testing a token. It does not explicitly name when to use this over alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with auth status, so the implied usage is sufficient.

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