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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description clarifies the behavior of creating a permanent connection versus a session-only login, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not mention potential side effects but provides additional context not present in 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 moderately concise, covering purpose and usage in three sentences. It is well-structured with clear separation of the two authentication options, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 adequately covers the main workflow (getting a link, authenticating with a token, and establishing permanent vs. session connections). It lacks error-handling details but is sufficient for an authentication tool.

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 description explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT for session-only login and explicitly states it is optional (using no args gets the link). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines the property type without description.

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 as authentication, explaining how to log in via browser and obtain an access token. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'show_version' by focusing solely on the authentication flow.

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, including two distinct methods (adding a permanent header or pasting a token for a session-only login) and how to invoke with or without arguments. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools but gives sufficient direction for when to use it.

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