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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description explains the behavior: it provides a login link or accepts a token, and mentions the permanent vs session-only distinction. However, it does not disclose what happens after authentication (e.g., whether it changes server state) or whether multiple calls are needed. Since annotations don't contradict, and the description adds some behavioral context (e.g., non-expiring config vs session), a 3 is appropriate.

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 somewhat long but contains necessary information. It starts with target audience and action, then details both login methods. The sentence structure is clear, though it could be slightly more compact by using bullet points or splitting into two sentences. No fluff, each sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (two authentication modes) and absence of output schema, the description covers the workflow well: how to get the link, how to use the token, and the permanent vs session comparison. It does not specify the output format (e.g., whether it returns a success message), but for an authentication tool, this is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 has one parameter 'token' with 0% description coverage. The description explains what the token is ('<jwt>') and when to pass it (after user pastes), and also mentions calling with no args to get the link. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema, which is just a string type. The description compensates for low schema coverage, hence 4.

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: to authenticate for MCP.AI in IDEs like Cursor. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents) and the action (log in via browser and copy access token). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning IDE agents specifically, though sibling differentiation is not explicit.

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 two clear usage paths: permanent login via config header or session-only login via token parameter. It explicitly instructs when to call with no args to get the link and when to use the token param. It also implies when not to use this tool (e.g., for other connection methods), and recommends the best approach (adding to config).

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