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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Clear current authentication' but does not explain whether it invalidates tokens server-side, what happens if the user is not authenticated, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a state-changing operation.

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 a single concise sentence ('Clear current authentication') with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a simple action, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool performing a simple authentication action, the description covers the essential behavior. While it does not describe return values (and there is no output schema), this is a minor gap for a logout operation where the return is likely trivial or not critical. The description is sufficiently complete given the low complexity.

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 tool has 0 parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to describe, so no deduction is needed.

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 'Clear current authentication' uses a specific verb ('clear') and identifies the resource ('authentication'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like getLoginLink (which retrieves a login link) and whoami (which returns current user identity), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to end an authenticated session) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. It lacks explicit 'use this when...' or 'not when...' guidance, but the context of the tool name and description make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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