Oauth: google 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. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: that secret values are saved/checked but deliberately not returned ('without showing them'), which tells the agent not to expect credentials in the response. It stops short of describing pagination or exact return shape, but no output schema exists to carry that.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the reported fields, then the sibling boundary. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the title.

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-parameter read-only status check with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is inspected, that secrets are not exposed, and how it differs from the integration-level status tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to clarify, and it correctly signals a no-argument call. No parameter text is needed or missing.

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 ('Show Google OAuth configuration status') and immediately enumerates what it reports: sign-in enabled, client ID and secret saved. It also distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling by scoping to end-user sign-in rather than integrations.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent by naming the alternatives, `integrations_oauth_status` and `integrations_oauth_configure`, and stating the condition that selects them ('Google as an integration'). The scope boundary is unambiguous, so an agent can pick between the two OAuth status tools without opening either schema.

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