Google services status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Show', implying a read-only operation, and lists the information categories, which gives some transparency. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., token refresh) or failure conditions, nor the exact format of the output. For a status tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and key objects. It is appropriately concise, with no filler words or repetitive details, making it efficient for an agent to parse and act upon.

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?

The tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description adequately covers the scope by enumerating the four content areas (credential config, data directory, connected accounts, token health). While it does not detail return structure, the lack of complexity makes this listing sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly.

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 schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantic burden. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no confusion and correctly implies no inputs are needed. The schema coverage is effectively 100%, so the description is not required to compensate.

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 begins with the action 'Show' and specifies four concrete subjects: 'credential configuration, data directory, connected accounts and token health'. This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like google_account_list (which only lists accounts) by focusing on broader status/health information.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as google_account_list (account listing only) or google_account_add/remove (account management). The description states what it does but not when it should be preferred over sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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