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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description goes well beyond by enumerating the full status state space, explaining transient vs terminal states, describing connector_pending as a server-side setup step, and noting that active status includes funnel stage and approval counts.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then delivers a compact, separated status list. Every parenthetical adds operational value, such as next actions or clarification, with no filler.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, this description is highly complete: it covers all status values, what they mean, what to do in actionable states, and what extra data appears when active. The lack of a formal JSON shape is acceptable because the semantics are fully conveyed.

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 no parameter burden to explain. The schema already covers this with an empty object and full coverage. The description instead enriches the output semantics, which is the appropriate use of its space.

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 clearly identifies the resource (Google connection) and the action (reporting its status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_meta_connect_status and connect_google by focusing on status rather than mutation or setup.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to determine where the Google connection stands. It also routes the agent to follow-up actions in specific states (pick_google_account, accept_google_terms, re-check later), but it does not explicitly contrast with get_meta_connect_status or connect_google for when-not cases.

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