start_google_auth

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully explains the tool's manual nature and its relationship to automatic authentication. Could mention potential side effects of improper use, but overall transparent.

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?

Concise, well-structured with clear lead sentence followed by bullet-pointed usage conditions. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Given output schema exists, return values don't need explanation. However, the tool has 2 parameters with zero schema descriptions, and the description doesn't compensate for that gap, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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%, yet description offers no explanation of the two parameters ('service_name' required, 'user_google_email' optional). The schema itself lacks descriptions, so the agent must infer parameter meanings from name only.

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 'Manually initiate Google OAuth authentication flow' using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with automatic authentication and providing usage scenarios.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions (re-authenticate, proactive, retry) and when-not (most cases just call the needed tool). Also notes it's legacy and disabled when OAuth 2.1 is enabled, giving clear guidance on alternatives.

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