auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only status check and does not suggest mutation, but it does not state that there are no side effects, whether authentication is required to call it, or how errors are handled. The output schema likely covers the return shape.

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 conveys the full purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter status endpoint.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could additionally point to auth_login for the login flow or explicitly state that it can be called before other Cian tools, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool.

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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly implies no input is required beyond the current session context.

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 ('reports') and resource ('whether the current Cian session is authorized'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like auth_login, search_offers, and get_offer because it identifies the exact piece of information being returned.

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 intended use is implied: check whether the current session is authenticated, likely before working with offers. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over auth_login or when to call it relative to other tools.

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