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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: this call may finalize a pending browser login and mutates auth state, and it explains the transport-dependent requirement on local storage. It stops short of saying what is returned or whether repeated calls are safe, but the added behavioral detail is meaningful.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the secondary behavior and the conditional parameter rule. No filler, though the third sentence slightly overlaps the schema description.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the tool's dual behavior, the conditional parameter, and the HTTP/no-local-storage case. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only explicit sibling routing and error/'not approved' 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines device_code and its conditional requirement. The description largely restates the schema's own wording ('returned by leafwright_login', 'no local storage') without adding format or example detail, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 verb+resource ('Check whether Leafwright MCP is authenticated') and clarifies a second behavior ('Completes a pending browser login if approved'), which distinguishes it from leafwright_login/leafwright_logout. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the function and its dual nature are clear.

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 a concrete condition for supplying device_code ('when the client has no local storage, which is the case over HTTP') and names the source tool, implying a login-then-check sequence. However, it never states the general when-to-use case, when not to call it, or how it relates to logout, so usage is only implied.

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