Stato della configurazione

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description only needs to add context. It does add value by disclosing that the tool also returns remediation guidance for broken sources, but it says nothing about whether credentials/keys must already exist, how long the probe takes, or how results are shaped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the object of the check comes first, followed by the added remediation behavior. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 parameters, no output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description carries most of the remaining burden and does cover what is checked and what extra guidance comes back. It stops short of describing the shape of the status report, but that gap is small for a zero-arg diagnostic.

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, so the baseline is 4 — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming that no input is required, which the empty schema already makes plain.

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 (verifica/checks) plus the exact resource — which data sources (Search Console, Analytics, Bing, PageSpeed/CrUX) are configured and functional. This diagnostic role is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, which are all data-fetching tools (gsc_*, ga_*, bing_*, psi_*, crux_*).

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 frames a clear context — pre-flight/config validation — and goes further by saying it explains what to do for unconfigured sources, which steers the agent to call it when setup is in doubt. It does not name explicit when-not conditions, but no sibling competes for this job, so the omission is minor.

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