territory_auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only status check ('Check current authentication status') rather than a mutation, which is the key behavioral disclosure. It names specific fields returned, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say whether this performs any network/session mutation or what happens if no session exists.

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?

One efficient sentence, front-loaded with verb 'check' and resource 'authentication status'. The list of returned values is compact, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

Simple zero-param read tool. The description identifies the checked resource and the three output facetscing. Could add a sentence on when to use it vs. the login and logout siblings, or clarify the meaning of the returned status.

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?

Zero parameters means the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The description adds value by stating what the tool reports (user email, user ID, session file path), which goes beyond the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb (check) + resource (Territory News) and enumerates the exact information returned: user email, user ID, and session file path. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling auth tools territory_login_browser and territory_logout, which are action tools, not status 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 tool's purpose implies it should be used to verify whether a session exists before login or after logout, but the description doesn't explicitly say this. It doesn't name territories_login_browser as the alternative for establishing a session. The context is clear but the exclusions and when-not guidance are absent.

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