Check AGC credential configuration

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

Annotations already mark this readOnly, non-destructive, and non-open-world, but the description adds meaningful behavior: diagnostics only, no network request made, and secrets are never returned. These are the exact assurances an agent needs before dumping output to a user, and they go beyond the structured hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is reported, then the no-network/no-secrets guarantees, then the trigger condition. Every sentence carries information and none repeats the title or name.

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 no output schema present, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (credential kinds loaded, active site, timeout, configuration problems). Combined with the safety notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this zero-arg diagnostic.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with the description's framing of a no-argument status probe.

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 (Report) plus the exact resource (AGC credential configuration) and enumerates the reported fields: credential kinds, active site, timeout, and configuration problems. This cleanly separates it from the data-fetching siblings like agc_list_apps and agc_report_export.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first when requests start failing with auth errors.' That is clear context for invocation, though it stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing to which sibling to try next after a clean result.

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