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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint, readOnlyHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the token can be stored permanently in config for a non-expiring connection, or passed directly for a session-only login. It does not mention side effects or error handling, but with annotations present, this is sufficient.

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 informative but structured as a single run-on sentence with multiple clauses separated by colons and 'or'. Every clause adds value, but better sentence breaks or bullet points would improve readability. It is not overly verbose, so it earns a 4.

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?

Given a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage patterns (with/without token), explains the two authentication modes, and indicates the outcome (getting a link). It does not explain what happens after a successful token-based login or how to confirm success, which is a minor gap.

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 schema only defines a token string with no description, so the description fully compensates by explaining that it expects a JWT access token, linking it to the browser login process, and showing how to use it in the call. This makes the parameter's meaning and format crystal clear.

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 implies authentication by describing the login-token process, but it does not explicitly state the tool's core purpose in a direct declarative sentence. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on authentication steps, though without naming alternatives.

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 explicit usage guidance: it explains the recommended permanent method (config header) versus the session-only method (pasting token), and clarifies when to call with or without the token argument. This gives clear 'when-to-use' and alternative selections.

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