auth_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 is a read-only status check (non-destructive), specifies what it returns (auth state + base URL), and indicates it returns actionable next steps on failure. It doesn't describe potential side effects but for a status check, the absence of side effects is well implied by 'Check'. Lacks some detail on what exactly the 'actionable next steps' contain.

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, both earning their place. The first states the primary purpose, the second adds the behavioral nuance about returning next steps on failure. Zero waste, appropriately 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is quite complete. It covers what it checks (auth, base URL) and behavior when unauthenticated. Minor gap: doesn't describe the exact return format, but with no output schema and a simple status-check purpose, this is adequate.

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?

This is a zero-parameter tool, so the schema carries no parameter semantics to convey. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately describes what the tool reports (auth state and base URL) without needing to explain parameters.

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 checks authentication status with MisarReach AND which API base URL is in use. It includes specific verb ('Check') + resource ('authentication with MisarReach') + scope ('API base URL'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like login/logout which are actual auth operations.

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 implicitly signals this should be used first to verify auth state before other tools, and mentions 'actionable next steps when it is not' authenticated. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'when NOT to use'. However, the nature of a status-check tool makes its usage context fairly evident.

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