auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only status check and explicitly states that the key value is not displayed, which is valuable behavioral context. It stops short of describing the response shape, but for a status probe this is substantial.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the privacy-related constraint is stated briefly as a second sentence; every clause earns its place.

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, no-output-schema status tool, the description covers what the tool checks, what it does not reveal, and implies read-only behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 ('確認する' / check) and a clear resource ('APIキーの状態' / API key status), then enumerates exactly what is checked: key location, JWT obtainability, and usable provider count. This clearly distinguishes it from the data-operation siblings.

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 purpose makes the usage context obvious: call this when you need to verify authentication readiness or API key status. No sibling tool appears to cover auth status, so explicit exclusions are not necessary; the guidance is clear without being wordy.

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