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 discloses that this tool checks login status and session info, implying it's a read-only operation without side effects, but lacks details on error handling, response format, or session validity criteria. It adds some context about authentication verification but doesn't fully describe behavioral traits like what happens if not logged in.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a usage guideline in the second, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. However, it could be more thorough by explaining what the check returns (e.g., session details, expiration) or error cases, which would enhance completeness despite the simple context.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents this fully. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without redundant information, earning a baseline score above 3 for efficient handling of a parameterless tool.

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', 'verify') and resources ('Delta Air Lines login status', 'SkyMiles session info'), distinguishing it from siblings like login, logout, or get_skymiles by focusing on authentication verification rather than authentication actions or account data retrieval.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to verify authentication before performing account-specific actions'), which helps differentiate it from siblings such as get_booking or manage_booking that require authentication, making it clear this is a prerequisite check.

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