check_mytu_auth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that it is a verification step and ties it to a workflow, but it does not disclose what the tool actually returns or what happens on mismatch. No contradiction with 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?

A single sentence that conveys purpose and usage context without any fluff. It is appropriately terse and the key 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 strong annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to know when to call it, but it omits details about the expected result or failure behavior. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap, but it could be more complete by stating that it returns a boolean or status.

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, so there is nothing to explain. The description is not required to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Verify') and a specific resource ('My TU Delft login and its account match'), and adds a contextual constraint ('before reading official results'). It is distinguishable from siblings like check_mail_auth or check_auth, though it could be more explicit about what 'account match' means.

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 when to use it ('before reading official results'), giving a clear context, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct to alternatives. There is no comparison with other auth-check tools like get_login_status or begin_mytu_login.

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