connection_status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-open-world semantics, and the description adds real context beyond them: the tool performs no network calls, always reports live_access=not_checked, and returns no credentials or customer data. That discloses the key behavioral limitation an agent needs to avoid misreading its result.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the critical caveat about auth_status. Phrasing like 'without network, refresh or browser' is slightly terse but earns its place as a scope constraint.

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 return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still usefully flags the live_access=not_checked field. The only real gap is the undocumented 'account' parameter on otherwise simple, well-annotated tool.

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?

There is one optional parameter, 'account', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no indication of what account scoping means or what happens when omitted. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 set: checking local setup, version and update source, explicitly without network, refresh or browser. It is clear what the tool inspects, though it never names the siblings it differs from (health_check, authenticate), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 implies usage for local diagnostics and sets one implicit exclusion — that a stored token is not proof of access, so this tool is not an auth check. It never explicitly says 'use authenticate to verify Google access' or contrasts with health_check, so routing is left to inference.

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