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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the main effect (completes sign-in, enables order placement) and the input source (browser address bar), but it does not mention potential side effects, session state changes, or error conditions such as invalid or expired codes.

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 sentences, no filler. The description front-loads the purpose, then states the input source and the success outcome. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple tool with three parameters and schema coverage of 100%, the description provides the key workflow context: it follows login, uses a browser-copied code, and enables ordering from that restaurant. It does not describe the return value or all possible failure modes, but these are somewhat outside the core description burden given the simple schema.

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 three parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of 'code' but adds no additional semantics for 'label' or 'clientId' beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool completes a sign-in started by login, using a code from the browser address bar. It also distinguishes this from the login step by naming 'login' as the starting point, and clarifies the outcome (ability to place orders from that restaurant).

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?

The description gives clear context: use this after login has started and the user has copied a code from the browser address bar. It implicitly contrasts with login by saying 'started by login,' but it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or mention alternatives like switch_account.

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