Get Google sign-in status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely non-derived context: the check covers both sign-in state and Docs/Drive permissions, and 'Never returns tokens' is a useful privacy/safety guarantee an agent can rely on. It stops short of saying what it does return (e.g., account identity, granted scopes), which keeps it out of the top band.

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, zero filler: the first defines the check, the second routes usage and ends on the safety guarantee. The most decision-relevant content (what it checks) is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-param status probe with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what is verified and what will never be leaked. The one remaining gap is the shape of a successful response (status value, account, scopes), which matters when the agent must interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters and the description introduces none, so there is nothing to mis-specify. With no parameters the baseline is 4; there is no schema detail the description could usefully add.

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 ('Check whether this server is signed in to Google') and further specifies the scope of the check (permissions required for Google Docs and Google Drive). This clearly separates it from siblings like `authenticate` and `sign_out` without needing to open 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?

Gives two explicit trigger conditions — after another tool fails with NOT_AUTHENTICATED or AUTH_EXPIRED, or after the user signs in via `authenticate` — and names the sibling to pair it with. Nothing about when to invoke it 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.