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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, state-changing operation. The description adds context by specifying that this initiates an OAuth flow specifically for Google sessions, and that mcp_token remains unchanged after polling. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.

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?

The description explains the action but omits details about the expected response or next steps in the flow (e.g., which poll to call after starting). Given no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (mcp_token) with its own description, so the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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's function: it starts a Gate OAuth flow to bind a Gate exchange UID to the current session. The 'Google sessions only' qualifier adds scope and distinguishes it from sibling binding/login tools.

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 provides a clear usage context ('Google sessions only') and notes a key behavioral fact ('mcp_token stays unchanged after poll'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like dex_wallet_bind_exchange_uid or dex_auth_gate_login_start.

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