auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns status information, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, what the output format is, or if it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Return OAuth status') and succinctly covers the two usage contexts. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which should document return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage, but could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., authentication requirements) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations and low schema coverage.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds some meaning by explaining that 'approval_id' is optional (implied by 'or current connection status') and used to check OAuth status for a specific approval. However, it doesn't detail the parameter's format, constraints, or default behavior beyond what's inferred, leaving room for improvement given the low schema coverage.

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: 'Return OAuth status' with two specific contexts (for an approval_id or current connection status). It uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('OAuth status'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'approval_request' or 'approval_resolve' which are related to OAuth approvals but serve different functions.

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 contexts by mentioning 'for an approval_id or current connection status,' suggesting when to use it (to check status of an approval or current auth state). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'approval_resolve' or 'auth_google_start,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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