yandex_auth_status

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and 'Local' reinforces the openWorldHint=false declaration. The description adds real context beyond the annotations: token values are never returned ('never values') and a pending device-flow user_code may be surfaced. It stops short of describing output shape or failure modes.

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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the key scope limit ('never values') is stated immediately. The telegraphic style is efficient but borders on terse.

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 local, read-only status probe with an output schema present, the description covers what is shown and the security constraint. The only real gap is the undocumented 'account' parameter.

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 single 'account' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all, so an agent cannot tell what account selects or that null means the default account. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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+resource: it shows which Yandex OAuth services hold tokens. 'Status' plus the mention of pending device-flow user_code cleanly separates it from the yandex_auth_start / yandex_auth_finish siblings, though it does not name them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: revealing a pending user_code suggests it is the tool to call mid-device-flow, before yandex_auth_finish. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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