Mariana Google MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully indicates the tool surfaces 'token status and last action', but omits details on failure modes, whether checks are live vs cached, or side effects.

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 with zero redundancy: the first declares the action, the second declares the output. Every word earns its place and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 diagnostic tool without annotations or output schema, the description adequately compensates by indicating what information is returned (token status, last action), though it could specify the return format.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4. The description implicitly confirms no inputs are required by stating it checks 'all configured' accounts, consistent with the 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 states a specific action ('Check connection health') and scope ('for all configured Google accounts'), clearly positioning this as a diagnostic tool distinct from its operational siblings like calendar_create or gmail_read.

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?

While the diagnostic nature implies use during troubleshooting or initial setup, the description lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to the google_auth sibling tool.

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