youtube_authorize_status

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

With no annotations, the description uses 'Check' which strongly implies a read-only operation, and it does disclose the three possible outcomes and the consent URL re-print. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, whether it is idempotent, or if repeated polling is safe.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Check') and the resource, then concisely lists the possible states and the URL re-print. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 such a simple tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and outcomes. However, it does not specify the exact return format or behavior when no consent flow is in progress, which is a minor but relevant gap for an agent invoking it.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description is not required to add parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to do so. This is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' with the resource 'in-flight consent flow started by youtube_authorize', clearly distinguishing it from related tools like youtube_authorize (start) and youtube_authorize_cancel (cancel). The purpose is unambiguous and properly scoped.

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 implies it is used after starting a consent flow with youtube_authorize, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or point to other tools for cancellation or re-authorization.

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