check_auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'check if already authenticated' but does not describe what happens on success/failure, whether it prompts for login, or any side effects. The output schema may detail return values, but the description lacks behavioral context.

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 a single sentence of 6 words, perfectly front-loaded. Every word adds value; there is no unnecessary text. It is optimally concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (likely describing return values), the description is nearly complete. However, it could mention what happens if not authenticated (e.g., throws error or returns false) to fully inform the agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage). According to rules, 0 parameters results in a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, but none is needed.

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 the verb 'check' and the resource 'authentication status with Monarch Money'. It is specific and distinguishes itself from other tools that are data retrieval or manipulation (e.g., get_accounts, refresh_accounts).

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 implies checking before other operations, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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