auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Check' implies a non-destructive read operation, but it does not specify what the return value looks like or any potential side effects (e.g., network calls). This is a acceptable minimal disclosure but not rich.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 status check with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what it does. However, it lacks contextual details like when to use it in the broader auth workflow or what the response contains, which would make it fully complete.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly needs no parameter information. There is no schema to clarify, and the description adds no unnecessary 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 clearly states a specific action ('Check') and resource ('connector is authenticated with IntakeQ'), making its purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_api_key and clear_api_key, which perform mutations rather than status checks.

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 the tool is used to verify authentication status, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites. For a simple status check, this is adequate but not explicit about the workflow (e.g., checking before making API calls).

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