auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that no cookie values are exposed, providing a useful safety guardrail. It also implies a read-only operation through the verb 'check', giving basic transparency about side effects.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It includes a parenthetical safety note that adds important context without unnecessary length.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers the core function and a key behavioral safeguard. The only minor gap is not specifying the return format (e.g., boolean or object), but this is acceptable for a simple status check.

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 for this dimension is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none, and the input schema correctly reflects this with an empty properties object.

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 function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('authentication status'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like deals, cart_diff, and search, none of which relate to authentication.

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 the tool should be used when the agent needs to determine if a user is authenticated. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough for the user to select it in appropriate contexts. No sibling tools offer similar functionality, so alternate guidance is not critical.

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