get_authentication_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully covers the safety profile of a read-only status check. The description adds the specific content of the report (sign-in status and token expiry) but no deeper behavioral context such as whether it reflects local or server-side state. With strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose (reporting sign-in status) and the secondary detail (token expiry). No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation information. Every word earns its place.

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 0-parameter, read-only tool with a present output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The only notable omission is guidance on when to check this status relative to the authentication flow, but given the tool's low complexity, that gap is minor rather than critical.

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 and the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and there is nothing for it to add beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource (account authentication status), and specifies the exact information returned: sign-in state and token expiry. This distinguishes it from the authentication-flow siblings like start_authentication, finish_authentication, and clear_authentication by positioning it as the read-only status query. However, it doesn't explicitly name or differentiate against those siblings, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related authentication siblings (start_authentication, finish_authentication, clear_authentication, create_oauth_*). There is no mention of preconditions, sequencing (e.g., check before starting auth), or exclusions. This is a pure statement of what it does with zero usage direction.

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