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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about session vs. permanent token handling but does not disclose additional behavioral details like error handling, side effects, or state changes. With annotations present, this meets the baseline but adds limited extra insight.

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 moderately sized but packed with essential usage details. It is front-loaded with the core action and then details both authentication paths. No redundant or filler sentences, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It mentions 'get the link' for no-args but does not state the return value when a token is provided (e.g., success/error message). It covers usage flows adequately but omits explicit return/error semantics, which could matter for agent decision-making.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'token' parameter. The description compensates well by explaining that the token is optional, used for session-only login when provided, and that calling without args yields a link. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema's bare property definition.

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 purpose: authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents. It specifies the action (log in, get token) and the resource (authentication access). It is distinct from sibling tools like connect or marketplace, as it is the sole authentication tool.

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 instructions offering two modes: permanent via server config or session-only via token parameter. It also explains that calling with no args returns a link. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but as the only auth tool, the context is sufficient.

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