Connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned content, including the non-obvious diagnostic detail of channel sign-in health and known project limitations. It does not state whether the call is cheap, cached, or whether quota figures are live, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

One front-loaded sentence enumerating the payload, followed by a short imperative for when to call it. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by listing each field category an agent would need to decide its next step. Nothing required to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 parameter-level for the description to clarify, and it correctly spends no words on arguments.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Show") and enumerates exactly what state is reported: OAuth configuration, connected channels and their sign-in health, default channel, today's quota use, and project limitations. This is distinguishable from narrower siblings like quota_status, list_channels, or get_channel, which each cover only one slice of what this aggregates.

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?

"Call this first in a new conversation" gives a concrete trigger condition, which is exactly the orientation guidance an agent needs before touching connect_channel or upload tools. It lacks explicit when-not conditions (e.g. "don't re-call mid-session") and doesn't name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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