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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'redacted', 'never token values' clarifies the security posture of the output, and 'notify-only client skill-pack policy' discloses a specific behavioral trait. Missing return format details, but the security disclosure is meaningful.

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 compact clauses front-loaded with 'Start here', zero waste, and the security caveat earns its place.

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 no-required-param read tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and security well. However, the undocumented optional connection_context parameter and absence of output schema leaves a gap in what an agent needs to invoke it correctly with that 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the optional connection_context parameter (with a strict mctx_v1_ pattern) is not mentioned anywhere in the description. The description provides no guidance on what connection_context is or when to supply it, leaving the agent to infer purely from the schema pattern.

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 clear verb (returns) and enumerates the specific resources: redacted OAuth readiness, capability truth, guide version, and client skill-pack policy. This is distinct from siblings like google_ads_workspace_get or creatives_cloud_status, though the description doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

'Start here' explicitly signals when to call this tool – first, before other setup operations. Clear context, but no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for related status queries.

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