ie_login_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: it does not open a browser, and its result becomes stale after expiry, prompting a follow-up with ie_auth_status. This is useful beyond the structured annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the follow-up routing to ie_auth_status is stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read-only check with an output schema and helpful annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core behavior, the browser side effect absence, and the expiry-related next step. It could define 'active sign-in job' slightly more explicitly, but the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'service' parameter at all. It only says 'active sign-in job,' leaving the agent to infer that the service enum selects which sign-in job to check. The enum values are somewhat self-descriptive, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: "Check the active sign-in job." It also distinguishes itself from ie_auth_status by explicitly noting it does not open a browser and that ie_auth_status should be used after expiry. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does relative to its siblings.

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 a clear condition for use: checking the active sign-in job. It also provides an explicit alternative for the post-expiry scenario: "After expiry use ie_auth_status to detect a sign-in completed later." It does not enumerate every sibling comparison, but for the key related auth tool it gives clear routing guidance.

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