check_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds important non-obvious facts: it never returns token values, access tokens refresh automatically, and an expired access token with a stored refresh token still counts as a working session. This is strong for a zero-parameter status tool, though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical security and refresh behavior follow in a compact paragraph.

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 an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool reports, what it will never return, and how to interpret an expired access token, leaving no missing information needed to call it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter explanation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the output semantics instead of inventing parameter-level details.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('Oura session'), and precisely names the three things an agent learns: whether a session is stored, which scopes it has, and when it expires. This clearly differentiates it from data-fetching siblings and setup_authentication.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool for inspecting the stored auth session, its scopes, and expiration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use before calling data endpoints,' but the use case is unambiguous from the first sentence.

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