Show Authorized Google Account

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by emphasizing that this is a read-only check of the 'currently authorized' account and implying that fixing an incorrect account requires external steps like deleting token.json and re-running npm run auth rather than changing state through this tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise use case, a practical troubleshooting note, the argument list, and the return value description. Every sentence earns its place, and nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple, read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It states what the tool returns (email, name, id), how to invoke it, and how to interpret the response_format parameter, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, response_format, and the input schema already fully documents it with an enum, a default, and a description. The description's Args section repeats that information without adding meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show which Google account this server is currently authorized as.' It clearly differentiates this tool from the classroom_* siblings, which all operate on Google Classroom data rather than on the authorization identity itself.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to confirm the server is pointed at the Google login that actually holds your classes.' It also provides actionable remediation for the wrong-account case, though it does not discuss when not to use it or name alternatives because no real sibling alternative exists.

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