auth_status

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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description adds real value: it explains that needs_login means the last open saw a login page, that age makes a stale 'ok' visible, and explicitly that no cookies, tokens, or URL query secrets are returned. That security/return-content disclosure goes well beyond the annotation, though it says nothing about refresh/polling cost or freshness guarantees.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the output shape before the semantic notes. Every clause carries information (field list, needs_login meaning, age rationale, no-secrets guarantee), though the field enumeration is somewhat list-heavy.

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, the description correctly carries the return-format burden and does so thoroughly, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile. It is complete enough to call correctly, with the only gap being guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling auth_* tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional 'site' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Omit to list every site'). The description adds no further syntax or format detail for the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 conveys that this is a per-site auth status report by enumerating the fields returned ('site id, confirmed login and work origins, last used time, last confirmed time, session age, and session ok or needs_login'). It is clear what the resource is, but it is framed as an output listing rather than a verb+resource statement and never contrasts itself with siblings like auth_read or auth_confirm.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the other auth_* tools (auth_login, auth_confirm, auth_open, auth_read, auth_act). The only scoping hint is implicit in the site listing behavior, which the schema already documents. No exclusions or preconditions are given.

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