auth_setup

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: 'Returns immediately after opening the browser. You have up to 10 minutes to complete the login.' It also discloses that it will skip re-authentication if already authenticated, which is important for idempotency. Annotations do not cover these temporal and conditional behaviors.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and clearly stated. The troubleshooting block adds length but contains actionable and relevant information. While not as compact as ideal, the structure (purpose, usage, troubleshooting) makes it navigable, and most sentences earn their place.

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?

For an authentication tool with open-world interaction and no required params, the description is complete: it covers when to use, what to expect, post-verification, behavior when already authenticated, and a troubleshooting flow for persistent issues. The presence of an output schema means return details need not be described, and the description covers all other critical context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all parameters, including nested browser_options. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. Mentioning 'opens a browser window' loosely relates to show_browser but is not tied to parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Google authentication for NotebookLM access - opens a browser window for manual login to your Google account.' It distinguishes itself from alternatives via explicit differentiation: 'Use this for first-time authentication...' and 'For switching accounts or rate-limit workarounds, use re_auth tool instead.'

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this for first-time authentication or when auto-login credentials are not available.' It also states when not to use it (for switching accounts) and names the alternative 're_auth'. Post-verification guidance is included: 'Use get_health tool afterwards to verify authentication was saved successfully.'

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