Check session

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so this is a safe read. The description goes further by disclosing the auth failure mode (ok=false, code=auth) and the remediation path, which is behavior the annotations cannot express. It stops short of noting rate limits or frequency expectations, keeping it at a strong 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the ordering rule, then the failure branch, then the return shape — a sensible priority order with no filler. The telegraphic 'ok=false code=auth' phrasing is dense but parseable in context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, yet the description still names the key fields. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile and the description covering the preflight/failure workflow, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The listed return fields (owner_id, cabinet, currency, balance, write_gate) add orientation but are not parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ping the ads.telegram.org session') and clearly separates itself from siblings by naming reload_session as the follow-up and check_update as a distinct concern. An agent can identify this as the session preflight tool without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering rule ('Use first in every chat') plus a concrete failure branch: on ok=false code=auth, present INSTALL.md DevTools steps and fall through to reload_session. This is textbook when-to-use plus when-to-escalate guidance.

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