Check note.com authentication

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

The description transparently conveys a read-only verification action through the verb 'checks,' and it clearly identifies that the check is performed against internal APIs using pre-configured cookies. With no annotations provided, this description carries the full burden and does so without contradiction, though it does not detail the exact return format or error handling.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that uses an active verb ('checks') and conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, balancing clarity with brevity.

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 no-parameter check tool, the description is largely complete—it states the action and target. However, it does not explicitly mention the return value (e.g., boolean indicating success) or prerequisites like cookie configuration, which would make it fully self-contained. Given there is no output schema, this slight omission leaves minor ambiguity, but the simplicity of the tool mitigates the gap.

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 the schema is trivially fully covered. The description adds context about 'configured cookies' but does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description satisfies it without requiring additional parameter-level detail.

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 precisely states the tool's function—validating whether configured note.com cookies can access internal APIs—which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like note_auth_login (which performs login) and note_auth_status (which likely reports status), by focusing on access verification.

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 implies usage as an authentication pre-check but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., 'use after setting cookies') or exclusions, leaving the intended context to be inferred from the tool's purpose.

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