Check Google credentials

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing what the tool inspects: which credentials are active and whether a token can be obtained, which is useful diagnostic context beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by practical usage advice. No filler or redundant 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?

For a simple zero-required-parameter read-only check, the description gives enough context about what is verified and when to call it. The only minor gap is the undocumented verbose flag, which also affects parameter semantics.

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 only parameter, verbose, has a boolean type in the schema but 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The name suggests it controls output verbosity, but the agent receives no guidance on its actual effect or default behavior.

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?

Clearly states a specific action: verify which Google credentials are in use and whether an access token can be obtained. This distinguishes it from the sibling audit and analytics tools, which perform completely different functions.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'Run this first if other tools fail', giving a clear when-to-use trigger. It does not discuss when not to use it or alternatives, but this is less critical given that no sibling duplicates this auth-checking role.

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