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

Annotations already indicate idempotent/non-destructive behavior; the description adds context about browser login, JWT token submission, permanent vs. session-only auth, and link generation. It does not mention token expiration or response details, but it covers the key behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded, presenting the core authentication flow first and then necessary variants. Every sentence adds practical value without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives strong contextual coverage: how to launch, when to use config, when to use a token, and what no-args calls do. It stops short of describing exact response/return behavior, which would make it fully 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?

The schema only defines `token` as a string with no description. The tool description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT, when to pass it, and what happens when the call is made with no arguments.

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 explains the tool's purpose: authenticating with MCP.AI via browser login and an access token. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by covering login link generation, token pasting, and config-based permanent authentication.

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: prefer config header for a permanent connection, use the tool with a token for a session-only login, and call with no args to get a login link. This effectively tells the agent when and how to invoke the tool.

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