flow_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'checks' status, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects, describe the output format, or address edge cases like what happens if no account is connected or if the connection is invalid. Some behavioral transparency is present but incomplete.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that lists the key data points without any fluff or redundant phrases. It is well-structured and front-loads the primary action and resource.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and likely return data (status, plan, credits, limits). It is slightly incomplete in that it does not specify the default behavior when the optional 'account' parameter is omitted, or describe the format of the returned status, but these are minor gaps for such a straightforward tool.

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 input schema fully describes the one optional parameter ('account') with 'Optional account key or email to check status for.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so no credit above baseline is warranted.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Google Flow connection status'), and enumerates exactly what it checks: active plan, remaining credits, and daily limits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_google_account, which establishes the connection rather than checking its 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?

The context implies this tool is used after connecting a Google account or to monitor usage, and clearly differentiates from connection/setup tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like 'must have an active connection' or 'use before generating'.

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