Integrations: oauth status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating what the status reports: whether a client ID is saved, whether it is enabled and used for social sign-in, and the required redirect URL. It does not cover edge cases such as unknown providers, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the specific fields returned and then the usage cue. No sentence is redundant and every part earns its place.

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 burden of explaining return values and does so clearly: saved client ID, enabled state, social sign-in usage, and redirect URL. For a one-parameter, read-only status tool, this gives an agent everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single `provider` parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples (slack, google, github). The description implies the tool operates on a provider but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show OAuth client setup status for a provider.' It distinguishes this tool from the sibling `integrations_oauth_configure` by naming it as the write-side alternative, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening the schemas.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Check it before `integrations_oauth_configure`, or after to confirm the credentials were saved.' The alternative tool is named and the conditions for using this status check are clear, leaving little to inference.

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