fabits_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking 'authentication status and account details including KYC status,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires prior authentication, what data is returned, potential rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user accounts.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted text, though it could potentially be more structured (e.g., separating authentication status from account details) for clarity.

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 complexity of checking authentication and account details, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., KYC status values, account metadata) or behavioral aspects like error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely provides critical user state information.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'user_id' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('check') and resources ('authentication status and account details including KYC status'). It distinguishes itself from most siblings which focus on investment actions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potentially similar tools like 'fabits_refresh_token' or 'fabits_logout' that might also 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether authentication is required), timing (e.g., after login or before transactions), or how it differs from other auth-related tools like 'fabits_refresh_token' or 'fabits_logout' in the sibling list.

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