oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns a URL for user interaction and describes the subsequent flow (Google redirects to callback URL, tokens stored automatically), which adds useful context about the OAuth process. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the basic flow.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential context about the OAuth flow. Both sentences earn their place by explaining what the tool does and what happens next, with zero wasted words or 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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, no annotations, but does have an output schema (implied by 'Returns a URL'), the description provides sufficient context for understanding this OAuth initiation tool. It explains the purpose, output, and subsequent flow, though it could potentially mention what happens if the user is already authorized or if there are scoping considerations.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it focuses instead on the tool's purpose and behavior, which is correct 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the Google OAuth authorization URL') and the resource ('for the user to visit'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gdrive_auth_callback and gdrive_auth_status. It precisely explains what the tool produces and its purpose in the OAuth flow.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: as part of the Google Drive authorization process, where the user needs to visit a URL to grant access. It implicitly distinguishes it from other auth-related tools by focusing on URL generation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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