google_wallet_pass_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add real value by declaring the login/authentication requirement and by framing the operation as a non-mutating status query. It says nothing about what happens when the card is absent or the user is logged out, and does not describe error or empty-state behavior. Given an output schema exists, the missing return-value detail is excusable, but the auth and no-side-effect context is the only behavior surfaced.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the result, the second states the gating prerequisite. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 zero-argument, read-only status check with a declared output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: the subject (Cumulus card in Google Wallet) and the auth prerequisite. Only minor gaps remain around logged-out/not-saved handling, which the output schema likely covers anyway.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments by scoping everything to 'your' Cumulus card.

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 states a specific query and resource: returning whether the Cumulus card is saved to Google Wallet. The singular noun 'status' plus the 'Whether...' framing makes clear this is a read of state, not a creation flow, which implicitly separates it from google_wallet_pass. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the Apple Wallet counterpart, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires login', which is genuinely useful for gating the call. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over google_wallet_pass (e.g. to check before adding) or apple_wallet_pass, so the agent must infer usage from the name. Adequate but thin.

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