accounts_auth_start

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does: it reveals that the call returns a human-openable URL, consent finishes asynchronously via a public /oauth/callback, and the account appears only after consent. It does not cover failure/timeout behavior, but the main side-effect flow is disclosed.

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 deliver the action, the return value, the required human step, the callback path, and the eventual outcome. The most important detail ('Start Google OAuth') is front-loaded with 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-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle an agent needs to convey: invoke, receive auth_url, have a human open it, and observe the account in accounts_list after callback. No essential missing context is apparent.

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 are no input parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter meaning to add. The baseline 4 applies because the description cannot add parameter value beyond an empty schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start Google OAuth for a mailbox over HTTP.' It also distinguishes the flow from sibling list/admin tools by stating it returns an auth_url and that the finished account surfaces in accounts_list.

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 conveys clear context: call this tool when Google OAuth needs to begin for a mailbox, and the result must be opened by a human. It does not explicitly contrast it with accounts_add or other account-management siblings, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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