initiate_gam_auth

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses mode (write), auth requirements, credits (free), output format (auth_url, session_id), and the need to poll poll_auth_status. All behavioral aspects are communicated.

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 well-structured with headings (MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, WHEN TO USE) and every sentence is informative. No waste.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the output and follow-up steps. It also references dependent tools and prerequisites, making the tool's role in the broader workflow clear.

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 single parameter network_code has a helpful description in both schema and tool description, including how to obtain it ('from the GAM UI or list_accessible_networks'). Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value beyond the schema.

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: 'Start the OAuth 2.0 authorization flow to link a GAM network to the OrbiAds tenant.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_credentials and poll_auth_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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use ('when a GAM network has not yet been authorized (check_credentials returns false)') and when not to ('Do not call if credentials are already valid').

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