Check Client Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses what the check exposes (credential resolution, read-only mode, OAuth scopes), which is meaningful behavior beyond the empty schema. It stops short of saying whether this performs a live network round-trip or how failures surface.

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?

One-sentence purpose followed by a compact 'Returns' block; the key claim (configured and can authenticate) is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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 description is adequate for a simple zero-param diagnostic, and the 'Returns' section redundantly but harmlessly previews the output schema. It lacks only guidance on interpreting failure (e.g., what a false credential resolution implies for subsequent calls).

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, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description correctly signals a no-input check and adds no misleading parameter expectations.

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 ('check') and resource (the Search Console client's configuration/authentication), which unambiguously separates it from the data-fetching siblings like list_sites and query_search_analytics. An agent can tell this is a diagnostic/preflight tool without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the purpose (verify config and auth) suggests calling it before other operations or when auth fails, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or what to do with the result. No alternatives are named.

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