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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the one-time api_key return, that the key cannot be shown again, how to use it as a Bearer header, and the authorization_pending polling behavior. These are important operational details for a credential-returning 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 three tightly written sentences with no waste. Critical behavior, polling guidance, and secret-handling instructions are front-loaded.

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 sign-in completion tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, error handling, credential usage, and security constraints. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and handle the result.

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% and the single device_code parameter is fully documented in the schema as coming from POST /v3/agent-connect. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: check an assistable_connect sign-in and retrieve an api_key once approved. It is clear enough to distinguish the tool from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name assistable_connect as the initiating tool.

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 gives explicit polling guidance: wait interval seconds and call again when error.code is authorization_pending. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, but the usage context is clear.

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