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

With annotations present the bar is lower, but the description does not disclose any consequence of logging out — whether credentials are invalidated, whether subsequent tool calls fail, or whether a reconnect is required. Given idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=true, an agent would benefit from knowing the session state changes and that calling twice is not harmless.

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?

A single clause with no filler, front-loaded and easy to scan. However, its brevity comes at the cost of all behavioral and follow-up context, so it is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a session-terminating operation the description omits the critical postcondition: what stops working after logout and how to reconnect (cirra_ai_init is a sibling). That gap is material to correct agent behavior.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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?

States a specific verb ('Logout') and resource ('Cirra AI MCP server'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from every sibling tool. It stops short of 5 only because it merely restates the annotation title with no additional scope detail.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus simply ending the session, no mention of what must happen afterward (e.g., re-run cirra_ai_init to reconnect), and no prerequisites. The agent must infer all usage context.

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