myob_auth_status

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

With no annotations, this description carries the burden. The verb 'Show' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it avoids mutations, does not refresh tokens, or what happens if unauthenticated. It adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the exact purpose without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete, but it could clarify what 'status' includes (e.g., token expiry, selected business name) or confirm it does not perform any side effects. Still, it's sufficient for a status tool.

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 baseline is 4. The description logically has no parameter details to add, and the schema already covers everything (100% coverage).

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the exact resources: MYOB OAuth authentication, token, and selected business status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like OAuth flow tools or business management tools, which perform actions rather than report status.

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 its use as a status-checking tool but does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or common contexts (e.g., checking auth before other operations).

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