check_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without prose. The description adds value the annotations do not: an inventory of the returned payload (license tier, usage, profiles, upgrade path), which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about auth requirements, but for a zero-parameter read that is a minor omission.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The return contents come first and the invocation cue follows, so an agent gets the highest-value information immediately.

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?

Since no output schema exists, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it lists the four payload areas an agent would care about. The only shortfall is the unaddressed boundary with guard_session_info, which weakens confidence about which tool to pick for session-related questions.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The schema being empty and fully described means no semantic gap exists here.

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 opens with a specific verb and enumerates exactly what is returned: tier, session usage, available profiles, and PRO upgrade instructions. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling guard_session_info, which plausibly overlaps on the 'session usage' portion.

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 to see your license status or get setup help" gives concrete triggers for invocation. It stops short of saying when not to use it or pointing to guard_session_info as the alternative for session-level queries, so routing between the two is left to inference.

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