gsc_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses idempotency, safety, that it spends no Search Console indexing quota, makes at most one API call, re-reports entire state, returns the same URL for pending consent, never raises, and gives privacy guarantees. This goes beyond basic expectations.

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 lengthy but every sentence serves a purpose: usage pattern, idempotency, step enumeration, return format, parameter semantics, privacy, and error behavior. It is well-structured with clear paragraphs and no wasted words.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return object structure, including ok, done, pending, next, and the meaning of null next. It also covers edge cases like unexpected faults. All necessary behavioral and operational details are present for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only lists open_browser as a boolean with a default, with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining exactly what open_browser does: opens the consent URL when a new consent starts, and that a repeat call while pending returns the same URL and opens nothing. This adds critical meaning.

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 'Set this server up, one step at a time' and enumerates the four specific steps (oauth_client, consent, browser, extension), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle jobs, status, performance, etc. The resource and action are specific.

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 iterative usage guidance: 'Call it, do what it says, call it again — repeat until ok is true' and explains that if you lose track, just call again. It also covers open_browser behavior on repeat calls. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools.

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