gmail_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the check is local and requires no network call, but does not elaborate on what 'readiness' entails (e.g., token expiration, credential validity). The output schema likely covers return values, but behavioral details are sparse.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It could optionally mention that the check is safe to call repeatedly, but as a simple status check, it is sufficiently complete.

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 no parameters, and the description confirms this by stating no network call needed. With baseline 4 for zero parameters, the description adds meaning by clarifying the absence of inputs.

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 verb 'Check' and the specific resource 'local Gmail OAuth credential and token readiness'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling Gmail tools by emphasizing the local, no-network nature, which is unique among them.

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 implies usage is for verifying auth readiness locally before network calls, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context suggests a pre-check role but lacks direct guidance.

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