Check Google credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds that it checks token obtainability, which is a behavioral trait, but it doesn't disclose response format or error behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds modest value.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second gives usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate: it explains purpose and when to use. However, the lack of any explanation for the 'verbose' parameter leaves a gap, and the return value is not described. It's a minimum viable description but not fully complete.

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 schema has a single optional boolean parameter 'verbose' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. An agent has no guidance on what 'verbose' does or how to use it.

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 states the tool's function: verifying which Google credentials are in use and whether an access token can be obtained. It uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (Google credentials) and distinguishes it from the many sibling audit and data tools by focusing on authentication status.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Run this first if other tools fail.' This establishes a clear condition for invocation and implies it serves as a diagnostic prerequisite, which is sufficient to differentiate it from alternatives.

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