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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), the description discloses an access-control constraint (only the initiating member), a lifecycle constraint (expired/cancelled/failed requests must be restarted), and a consent requirement in the browser. That is meaningful operational context. It does not cover polling/rate behavior or what a completed connection yields, but the output schema carries return shape.

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 status/scope statement is front-loaded, followed by constraint and recovery notes in short declarative sentences. Slight redundancy from repeating the title verbatim at the start, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the read-only safety profile is already in annotations. However, for a nested-parameter tool with no schema coverage, the description leaves the required connectionId unexplained and does not say what statuses the caller might observe, so an agent still has gaps.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must compensate for the single nested path.connectionId parameter, and it never mentions the connection ID, its single-use nature, or that it comes from startGoogleMailboxConnection. The only hint is the phrase "your own Google OAuth request status," which does not map explicitly onto the 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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: "Read your own Google OAuth request status." It implicitly separates itself from startGoogleMailboxConnection by being the read side of the flow, and adds the clarifying line "A completed connection is not an email send." It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It gives real context: only the initiating member may inspect the request, and expired/cancelled/failed requests should be restarted with fresh browser consent. What is missing is an explicit pointer to the alternative tool (startGoogleMailboxConnection) for that restart path, so the agent must infer it.

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