auth_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check whether' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the explanation about authenticated actions adds valuable context. It doesn't explicitly state the return type (e.g., boolean), but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the exact check and its relevance. No filler or redundancy—every word 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 tool, this is complete. It explains what is checked, why it matters, and mentions specific authenticated actions. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description correctly omits parameter details. With no parameters, the baseline is 4 and no additional semantics are needed.

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 ('Check') and resource ('current session to carsales.com.au'), and singles out two sibling tools ('save_vehicle' / 'make_offer') as the reason for checking. This clearly distinguishes it from tools like 'set_auth' and other search/list 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?

It states the purpose is to confirm whether authenticated actions will work, which implies use before save_vehicle or make_offer. It gives context but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, though the reference to authenticated actions effectively routes the agent.

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