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

Annotations already indicate the tool is idempotent and not read-only, so the description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the permanent vs. session-only connection semantics and the fact that the permanent header approach does not expire. It stops short of describing what the tool returns after accepting a token or how failures are surfaced, but it provides meaningful transparency beyond 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the tool's essential login purpose, followed by the two recommended usage paths. It is slightly dense because it bundles setup/config instructions with invocation behavior, but every sentence provides necessary guidance without padding.

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 the simple schema, annotations, and lack of output schema, this description covers the essential invocation paths, token semantics, and session vs permanent connection distinction. It does not explicitly describe what the agent should expect in the response after submitting a valid token, but the overall guidance is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has one optional string parameter with no per-parameter description, and the tool description compensates by explaining the token is a JWT pasted by the user and how to call with or without the token. It gives a concrete invocation shape: `{ token: "<jwt>" }` or no args to get the link, which substantially enriches the schema.

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 identifies the tool as the authentication/login mechanism: log in in the browser, copy the access token, and pass it back for a session-only login or no args to get the login link. It distinguishes the tool from common sibling operations by focusing on browser-based auth rather than generic connection handling, though it does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative.

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 explicit usage instructions and options: recommending permanent header configuration for non-expiring access, versus session-only login via pasting a JWT, and when to call with no arguments to retrieve the link. This is strong when-to-use and how-to-use guidance, with clear alternative paths based on desired persistence.

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