Check setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful detail of what specifically is validated (key, connectivity, accounts, quota), but says nothing about failure behavior, error surface, or what a failed check looks like — for a diagnostic tool that gap matters.

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 short sentences, the capability list front-loaded and the action directive last as the actionable takeaway. No filler and nothing repeated from 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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally sketch the shape of the verification result (which checks pass/fail, remediation hints) — it lists the checks but not how results are reported. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool the remainder is otherwise complete.

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 and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and enumerates the exact resources checked: API key, connectivity, connected accounts, and quota. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like refresh_account, describe_platform, and get_organization, which handle narrower concerns.

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?

"Run this first before any other tool" gives an explicit sequencing directive that an agent can act on directly. It stops short of naming when-not conditions or pointing to alternative diagnostics (e.g., refresh_account for credential refresh), so it falls one step below the top.

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