EDF: Auth Status

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and scope (openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: it discloses the full set of facts returned, that a signed-out call yields sign-in instructions rather than an error, and the account-to-multiple-homes model that explains why home is reported. It does not say whether the home can be switched from here or how credentials are secured, but for a status probe this is solid added context.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing, with no filler. The first sentence is a dense run-on that stacks four separate facts plus a parenthetical aside, and the most actionable line (call this first when signedIn is false) is buried at the end rather than front-loaded.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so by naming each field category including the signed-out variant. The only gap is the precise shape of the response and whether the reported home can be changed elsewhere in the auth family.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies it acts on ambient session state and requires no input to report status. No parameter meaning is left ambiguous because there are none.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports: sign-in state, which home is being read (with the account/home distinction explained), when the login occurred, and where it is stored, plus the signed-out return case. That is a specific resource-and-payload statement rather than a restatement of the name. It stops short of a crisp verb+object framing and never names edf_auth_login as the counterpart, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"Call this first when a data tool answers signedIn: false" gives an explicit, actionable trigger condition, and the signed-out branch tells the agent what to expect next (sign-in steps). There is no explicit exclusion or a named alternative for the remediation step, so the routing story is clear but not complete.

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