auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool proactively names a command for the user to run, and it should be invoked as a first-line diagnostic after permission failures.

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?

Two crisp sentences, front-loading the tool's outputs and then giving a concrete usage directive. Every word serves a purpose; 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?

The tool is simple, has no parameters, has an output schema, and is well-annotated. The description covers what it reports, when to call it, and what value the response provides, leaving no practical gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so parameter documentation is irrelevant. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies the exact diagnostic resource: active profile, token scopes, and reachable Google APIs. This clearly differentiates it from the reporting and analytics sibling tools, which focus on data, not authentication state.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool first after a permission error and notes that the response names the exact terminal command. This provides an unambiguous trigger condition and practical guidance, which is more than enough for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.

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