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 of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it reads local config only, makes no network call, causes no profile change, and never returns the token value. This is a thorough disclosure of its operational limits and side effects, leaving no ambiguity about its safety and read-only nature.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Report whether...') followed by critical behavioral constraints. Every clause adds value, with no waste or redundancy. The structure is efficient and immediately actionable.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (so return values are handled externally), the description is complete for an agent to call it correctly. It covers what, how, and safety considerations. The only omission is usage timing relative to siblings, but that is adequately covered by usage guidance and does not detract from completeness.

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 of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. The schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate given the absence of parameters.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Report' and specifies the resource: 'whether a LinkedIn access token is stored and when it expires.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like auth_start (which would initiate authentication) and get_profile (which retrieves profile data). The scope is well-defined.

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 states 'Reads local config only: no network call, no profile change' which implies it is a safe, read-only check, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough that an agent would infer this is for checking auth status before proceeding, but it could be more explicit about when to use it versus auth_start.

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