auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds the important behavioral note 'never contains secret material', which is beyond what annotations provide. This enriches transparency about the tool's safety and content. No contradictions.

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 consists of a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Report Google authentication status') and adds a critical safety qualifier. Every word serves a purpose; zero waste.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by mentioning the expected output format (e.g., a status string or object), but the current content still provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's function.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter information. With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4, and the description adds sufficient context about the tool's purpose.

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 'report' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Google authentication status'. It provides precise scope with the clarification 'never contains secret material'. With no sibling tools, differentiation is not required, making this fully clear.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool has no siblings and is simple, so the lack of explicit usage context is acceptable but not ideal. A score of 3 reflects minimal viability.

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