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

The description discloses the side effects: permanent config change (adding header) vs session-only login. It also notes the token is non-expiring for permanent mode. However, it does not explicitly state the outcome of successful authentication (e.g., return value) or mention error handling, which could be more transparent. The idempotent annotation aligns with the description's implication that calling multiple times is safe.

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 a bit long with multiple clauses and options, but it is well-structured and necessary to cover the two authentication modes. It could be slightly more concise, but it remains clear.

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 complexity of two authentication modes, the description covers the main usage scenarios and parameter meaning. It does not mention return values (since no output schema exists) or error cases, which would enhance completeness, but the core usage is adequately explained.

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 a 'token' string, and the description explains its meaning ('access token', '<jwt>') and that it is optional (call with no args to get link vs with token to authenticate). This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 is for authentication ('log in', 'authenticate') and distinguishes it from sibling tools (connect, marketplace, etc.) which are unrelated. It explicitly explains the two modes of use (permanent config vs session) and how it works.

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 instructions: 'Best' for permanent setup, 'Or' for session-only, and details how to call with or without the token. It also explains when each mode is appropriate, giving clear guidance on usage.

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