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

Goes well beyond the annotations: revoking the session, the consequence that the next request forces a re-auth prompt, 'Deletes no data and changes no settings', and the app-owned-credential failure mode with its result message. This is exactly the side-effect and auth context the hints (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) cannot convey.

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 sentences, each load-bearing: what it does, when to call it, and the exception path. Front-loaded with the effect and the strict usage gate, with no filler.

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 restated; the description instead supplies the outcome semantics ('next request makes the client ask the user to sign in again'). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail, and schema coverage is trivially 100% for an empty object.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Ends the caller's current Paxaver sign-in for this MCP connection - revokes the session.' The scope is nailed down further ('for this MCP connection') so it cannot be confused with any of the cancel_* or list_* siblings.

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?

Explicit triggering condition: 'Call this ONLY when the user explicitly asks to sign out, log in again, or switch to a different Paxaver account or region.' It also names the case where the tool is the wrong route (app-held credentials) and points to the correct alternative.

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