g_authorize

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: opens consent screen, uses local loopback server, stores refresh token, and returns authorize_url if browser fails. However, it lacks details on error handling or existing token checks, which would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core action and immediately provide usage context and fallback behavior. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter OAuth tool, the description covers the essential workflow, return value, and system requirement. It does not detail return format or error states, but these are predictable. The lack of output schema is partially mitigated by the textual return description.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'timeout_seconds'. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic value from the description.

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 tool's purpose: opening Google consent screen, capturing authorization code via loopback server, and storing refresh token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like g_set_code and g_auth_status by specifying its unique 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 a usage condition ('Use on a machine with a browser') and hints at an alternative flow (fallback URL), but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. Guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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