Check drivelift setup status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by calling this a 'Report' operation. It adds meaningful context beyond annotations by listing the returned fields, the state enum, and the specific instruction to relay next_steps verbatim, as well as noting the BYO OAuth client and drive.file scope. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs in output details, user-relaying instructions, console_form usage, and OAuth context. It is longer than average but every sentence carries actionable information; only the final contextual sentence is slightly extra, though still relevant.

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, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: state enum, message, next_steps, urls, and console_form. It also tells the agent exactly how to relay next_steps and when to show console_form as a table, making this complete for a zero-parameter read-only 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies here; the description appropriately focuses on outputs instead.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report whether drivelift can upload to Google Drive right now.' It enumerates the exact return states (no_client / no_token / token_invalid / api_disabled / ready), which clearly distinguishes this setup-level status check from the sibling auth_status tool without needing to inspect either schema.

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 implies when to use the tool — whenever you need to know if an upload is currently possible — and gives post-invocation guidance ('When not ready, relay next_steps to the user verbatim'). However, it never explicitly compares itself to alternatives like auth_status or states when not to use it, so selection guidance is left to inference.

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