carrefour_session_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior (local status check, optional verification) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe the verification's network/auth implications beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 communicates the tool's purpose without waste. It is concise, grammatically clear, and contains no redundant information.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it conveys the primary function and the optional verification mode. It does not specify what the return value looks like, but 'Report whether' implies a boolean/status result, which is sufficient given the tool's low complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the one parameter (verify) is already fully documented in the schema. The tool description only adds the phrase 'optionally verify it against the site,' which adds little beyond the schema's more detailed explanation of the authenticated request.

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 function: report whether a Carrefour session is stored locally, with an optional site verification. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from session-management siblings like carrefour_refresh_session and carrefour_clear_session.

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 makes the intended use clear: check local session presence and optionally validate it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but it provides enough context for an agent to know when this status-check tool is appropriate.

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