sbis_check_auth

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

The description explicitly states that the tool does NOT reveal secret values, only reports which variables are set. This is critical behavioral disclosure beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also describes the exact return shape, which is valuable given the output schema is not shown in detail.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies a critical non-behavior, and the third gives the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and what it returns. The annotations confirm the read-only nature, and the sibling list provides context for when this might be used.

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 the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return value instead.

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 tool's purpose: checking whether required credentials are present in the environment. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('credentials'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from other SBIS tools by focusing on auth state rather than data operations.

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 when to use this tool: before operations that require credentials. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of checking auth readiness is clear. Given the sibling tools are all data operations, the usage context is reasonably inferable.

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