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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses that the URL embeds a short single-use login code rather than a long-lived token, that it passes through credential filters, and that fetching or opening the URL consumes the human's login. This gives the agent critical behavioral knowledge it could not infer from the schema.

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?

The description is tightly organized with a front-loaded purpose, followed by the human use case and then the critical handling warnings. Every sentence adds value: no filler, no repetition of the schema, and no unnecessary context. It is exactly as long as it needs to be.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, what the human should do with it, what the agent should not do, and why. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and relay the result appropriately.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter (auth_token) with 100% coverage: 'Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.' The description adds no further parameter detail, but the schema is already sufficient, so the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a login link for the web dashboard.' It then clarifies exactly what the tool returns: a URL a human can open in a browser to log in as the authenticated user. This is clearly distinguished from sibling link tools like get_kyc_link by focusing on the dashboard and authenticated-user session.

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: 'Useful for humans who want to see what their AI agent has been doing (view cards, transactions, balances, etc.).' It also gives operational guidance: relay the URL verbatim and do not fetch or open it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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