auth_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a side-effect-free read by naming the two facts returned (account in use, token source), but it says nothing about whether the token value is exposed or masked, whether the check makes a network/auth call, or what happens when no valid token is configured.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the two outputs (account and token origin) come in the right order. It is arguably too short rather than too long, but the structure itself is clean.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must fully specify behavior and results. It names the two returned facts but leaves the return shape (field names, masking of the token, failure/empty-state behavior) undefined, which is the main remaining gap for a zero-param diagnostic 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 takes zero parameters and the description correctly does not invent any, so there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('which Meta account is in use and where the token came from'), so an agent knows exactly what question this tool answers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the org-listing siblings, but the resource domain (Meta account/token) is distinct enough from list_orgs/select_org that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is a diagnostic call to run before other Meta operations when the active identity is uncertain. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the siblings.

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