ie_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the check is live, requires no browser, and provides the important caveat that outages should not be misinterpreted as logged-out states. This is exactly the kind of interpretive guidance an agent needs.

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 with the primary action front-loaded. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second provides a necessary interpretive caveat. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 read-only status tool with one enum parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential semantic point and adds the critical outage caveat. However, it omits any mention of the 'service' parameter and does not clarify how it relates to sibling auth tools, leaving a moderate gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter. It does not mention 'service' at all or explain that it selects the platform (connects or blackboard) to check. While the enum values are self-explanatory, the description fails to close the documentation gap for this required parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check live sign-in without opening a browser.' This clearly communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from browser-based login flows. The caveat 'Outages are not logged-out states' further clarifies the intended interpretation of the result.

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 phrase 'without opening a browser' implies a contrast with browser-based tools, but no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not differentiate this from similar siblings like ie_login_status, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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