check_auth

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: exactly one authenticated request is made and the response includes an 'ok' flag that indicates whether a new token is needed. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second gives actionable decision guidance. Every word adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and low complexity, this description is complete: it explains how to invoke the tool, what it does, and how to interpret the result. The follow-up instruction about requesting a new token closes the loop.

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 schema coverage for descriptions is 100%, so the schema is complete. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies the call requires no arguments.

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 states a specific action ('Make one authenticated request') and resource ('the session token'), and it clearly explains the tool's purpose: verifying session validity. This distinguishes check_auth from the data-retrieval sibling tools, which all focus on gathering league or player information.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to test the session token. It also provides a concrete follow-up action ('Ask for a new token when ok is false'), which helps the agent know how to respond to the result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no auth-related sibling exists, so the guidance is sufficient.

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