check_ubereats_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and reveals key behaviors: reuses Chrome session, copies cookies on start and on session expiry, and never asks for a password. It does not specify return format or side effects, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'check'.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the main purpose, then uses a dash to add session-reuse context. No redundant or filler words; front-loaded and efficient.

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, no-output-schema check tool, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what it checks, how it authenticates (via Chrome cookies), and that it never asks for a password. The only gap is not explicitly stating the return value (e.g., boolean), but that is a minor omission for such a simple 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?

No parameters exist and the schema is empty, so the description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters.

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?

Clearly states the specific action ('Check whether the connector is signed in to Uber Eats') and distinguishes itself from sibling data-retrieval tools (orders, details, transactions, export). The verb 'check' and resource 'auth status' are unambiguous.

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?

Implies the tool is a pre-check for authenticated operations (e.g., before fetching orders) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to. No exclusions or direct references to siblings.

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