get_server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context: no credential values are exposed, no network calls are made, no jobs are started, and credential presence is not proof of live Google permissions or quota. That last caveat is exactly the kind of interpretive guidance annotations cannot carry.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the exclusion list (no credential values, no network calls, no jobs) is effectively front-loaded. It could be slightly stronger if the primary purpose preceded the caveats rather than 'Inspect local setup' being the vague opener.

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, the description need not enumerate return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. Given the tool's simplicity (zero params, closed world), the description supplies sufficient behavioral framing, though a stronger statement of what 'setup' comprises would close the remaining gap.

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 by the rubric baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level.

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 says it 'inspect[s] local setup', which conveys a diagnostic read against the local environment, but it never states what status information is actually returned (credentials present, config paths, version, etc.). It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like reauthenticate or list_properties, so an agent must infer its role.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The line 'Credential presence does not prove current Google permissions or quota' hints at a diagnostic use case, but the agent is left to infer that this tool is for pre-flight troubleshooting rather than, say, authentication.

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