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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the return values (credential resolution, read-only mode, OAuth scopes), but it does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects or what authentication prerequisites exist. The verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, but this is not stated.

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 brief, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear 'Returns' section for the output. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no wasted words.

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, output schema present) and the description covers its core behavior and return semantics. One minor gap is that it does not explicitly clarify that this checks the API/credential client rather than a Tag Manager 'client' entity, which could matter given the many client-related sibling tools.

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, so the input schema is already complete and the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resource ('Tag Manager client') and the condition being verified (configured and can authenticate). The return list reinforces that this is a health/status check, distinguishing it from CRUD operations like list_clients or get_client.

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 intended use case is implied: use this when you need to verify client configuration and authentication status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_client or list_clients, leaving some selection work to the agent.

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