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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the permanent vs. session-only behavior, that no-arg calls produce a login link, and that token calls accept a JWT. It also clarifies how authentication state is expected to persist or expire, which is highly useful for an agent.

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 practical and nearly every sentence adds meaningful guidance about authentication setup, session persistence, and call behavior. It is slightly run-on and not perfectly structured by priority, but it remains effective and appropriately compact.

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 1-parameter interface and no output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior (link), usage modes, and configuration guidance. It could also address token expiration or explicit error behavior, but for this tool's complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and only an optional `token` string, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter meaning. It explicitly says the token is a JWT to be pasted and that calling without args retrieves the login link, which fully compensates for the bare 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 authenticate/log-in behavior and explains how tokens are provided, including both browser-centric and token-based flows. It is more specific than the tool name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling tool `connect`.

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 guidance: the recommended permanent approach is to configure the Authorization header on the server, and a session-only login is available by passing a JWT. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the two modes, but the practical context is clear.

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