google_forms_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Report' implies a read-only, side-effect-free check, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe, idempotent, or that it requires no authorization itself.

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 that communicates the entire purpose without filler. Every word earns its place for such a simple tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The tool is low-complexity and the description adequately covers its purpose, though it could mention prerequisites or when to invoke it relative to the sibling form tools.

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 per the scoring rules the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to describe nonexistent parameters, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 ('Report') and a precise resource ('whether the active user's Google authorization is configured'). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which operate on form drafts rather than authorization 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 purpose implies the usage context (checking whether authorization is ready before attempting form operations), but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites. It does not mention alternatives or when not to call it.

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