google_check_pending_auth

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

Given that no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return behavior on success: 'Returns the connected account info if successful.' However, it does not disclose what happens if the auth is still pending, fails, or how errors/timeouts are handled. This is a moderate gap for a state-checking tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage timing and return behavior. No wasted words.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and success case but omits behavior for pending or failed states, and does not describe the response format beyond 'connected account info.' This is adequate but leaves room for the agent to handle unexpected outcomes, so it is not fully complete.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter sessionId, including its origin: 'The session ID returned by google_add_account.' The description does not add further detail about the parameter beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Check the status of a pending Google account authorization.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like google_add_account (which initiates the flow) and google_remove_account (which removes an account) by focusing on the pending-auth check state.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Call this after the user has completed the OAuth flow in their browser.' This provides clear temporal context and implies it should be used after google_add_account initiates the flow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'after' instruction is sufficient for an agent.

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