check_auth

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses caching (30s per token) and lists exact return fields (user, scopes, capabilities, balance, client info). It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only check this is acceptable. Could be slightly more explicit about non-destructiveness.

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?

Front-loaded with primary purpose, then detailed bullet-like list. Every sentence adds information; no wasted words. Efficiently communicates purpose, usage, and return data.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, when to use, return data, caching. Could explicitly reference sibling tools (e.g., 'for actual auth use authenticate or login'), but not required. Overall sufficient for agent decision-making.

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?

No parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description adds value by detailing what data is returned beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description meets it by explaining output semantics.

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 'Preflight check before invoking other tools' and enumerates the returned data (authenticated user, OAuth scope, tier capabilities, wallet balance, client info). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'login' by focusing on scope selection and cost awareness.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Agents should call this at the start of a workflow to pick the narrowest scope needed and to surface cost/balance to the user before committing to a charge.' Also mentions caching behavior (30s), which helps the agent decide when to call.

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