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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent). The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the return value (authorizeUrl), the human-in-the-loop requirement, single-use + expiring link (expiresAt), where the credential is stored, and the config:write requirement. This is exactly the extra disclosure the annotations can't carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then packed with the essential return-value and human-in-the-loop facts. Every clause earns its place, though the semicolon-separated density is slightly heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the returned authorizeUrl and expiresAt, the auth requirement (config:write), and the critical constraint that an agent cannot finish consent. Nothing an agent needs to call and reason about this tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including scope defaults and returnTo. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Begin the OAuth consent for a server bound as remote') and immediately distinguishes its scope from sibling lifecycle tools like bind_mcp_server or refresh_mcp_server_tools. An agent knows exactly what action this performs without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear precondition ('a server bound as remote') and an explicit constraint that 'an agent cannot complete the consent itself,' which tells the agent when this tool is and isn't the right call. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools, hence 4 rather than 5.

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