Connection status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description's added value is the disclosed return content, which is important because there is no output schema. It tells the agent it will learn connection state, account, and property, but says nothing about what is returned when Google is not connected.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary answer (is Google connected) and then adds the secondary details. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 no-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what the agent will learn. It would be fully complete only if it described the not-connected case or the shape of the response.

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 the description needs to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading or missing parameter information is possible here.

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?

'Show' is an unambiguous verb and the resource is spelled out precisely: connection state, linked account, and linked property. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_list_sites or gsc_performance_summary, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the pre-flight check before other gsc_* calls, but nothing says when to call it versus gsc_connect or gsc_list_sites. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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