Client check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: that secrets are reported only as booleans by kind and 'the values are never read out', which tells the agent the output is non-sensitive and shaped predictably.

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?

One dense but well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Health of one client') and then enumerates the returned facets. No filler, though the nested parenthetical and clause stack require a re-read.

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 and only one optional parameter, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it enumerates services, token/scope status, and the boolean secret map. It stops short of describing the response envelope or error semantics, but an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100% — the single client_id parameter already documents 'Client id from clients_list; empty uses the only client'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies; it neither compensates for nor degrades existing coverage.

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 names a specific resource and scope: health of ONE client, enumerated as configured services, Google token validity/scopes, and secret-storage booleans. The parenthetical '(like server_status)' positions it against the server-level sibling, giving partial sibling differentiation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with client_profile or clients_list.

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?

Usage is implied (check whether a client is healthy/configured) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement. The only comparative cue is '(like server_status)', which hints at the relationship to the server-level tool but doesn't spell out which to pick when.

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