check_auth_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, but the description adds substantive behavioral facts the annotations cannot convey: no network request is made, it remains functional even when auth is broken, and the client secret is never returned (only whether it is set). That is exactly the extra context this dimension rewards.

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 first two sentences are tight, front-loaded, and earn their place. The trailing 'Returns:' block slightly duplicates the output schema, which the rubric says the description needn't restate, so it is not maximally lean.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent actually needs to decide and act: that the call has no side effects on the API and that it is the right probe under auth failure. Nothing material is missing.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it does not clutter itself with invented parameter guidance.

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 names a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('which Nettskjema credentials and URLs this server is configured with'), which an agent can instantly distinguish from every sibling tool that actually calls the API. Nothing is tautological – it does not merely restate the name 'check_auth_status'.

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?

It gives clear conditional context: 'Makes no request, so it still answers when authentication is the thing that is broken' tells the agent to reach for this when auth failures are suspected. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g., get_user_info as a live credential probe) or state exclusions, so it stops short of the top band.

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