Connect a Google account

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool returns a command string and does not perform the login, with OAuth consent happening out-of-band in the browser. It does not cover what happens if the account id already exists or how the returned command should be conveyed, which the non-idempotent annotation hints matters. No direct contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, since the description never claims the tool is side-effect free.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the crucial caveat about where consent happens. No filler.

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 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: that the return value is an instruction to hand to the user rather than an action performed in-band. Adequate for the tool's complexity, though edge behavior (duplicate account ids) is unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents 'role', 'access', and 'account' with enums and defaults. The description mentions none of them, so it adds nothing beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the exact command the user must run to connect a new Google account') and immediately dispels the wrong mental model that the tool performs the OAuth flow. An agent can distinguish this from disconnect_account or set_account_role without opening any 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?

It clearly states the context: OAuth consent happens in the user's browser, so this tool is used to obtain the instructions rather than to log in. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g., disconnect_account) or state prerequisites, so it is strong but not fully routed.

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