Start Google Auth

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

Annotations provide minimal info (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint all false, openWorldHint true). The description adds valuable context: it's a manual OAuth flow, it's legacy, and automatic authentication exists. It does not contradict annotations.

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 relatively long but well-structured with a NOTE and bullet points, front-loading the core purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure aids readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (auth flow with two params, output schema present), the description covers usage scenarios and behavioral context well. However, it omits parameter semantics and does not describe the return value, which is partially mitigated by the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not describe 'service_name' or 'user_google_email' at all. The description focuses on when to use the tool but neglects parameter meaning, leaving the agent to guess.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Manually initiate Google OAuth authentication flow.' It provides a specific verb ('initiate') and resource ('OAuth authentication flow'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being solely for authentication, not workspace operations.

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 tells when to use this tool (re-authenticate, proactive auth, retry after failure) and when not to ('simply try calling the Google Workspace tool you need'). It also mentions it's legacy and disabled when OAuth 2.1 is enabled, providing clear context for alternatives.

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