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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context about permanent vs. session-only login and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not specify what happens after providing a token (e.g., success response), but the disclosures go beyond 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 front-loaded with the action ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') and then provides two clear alternatives. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns when a token is provided, but it implies the flow. Given the straightforward purpose, this is nearly complete, with only a minor gap on response format.

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 has one token parameter with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It fully explains that token is a JWT from the browser login, and clarifies that it's optional (no args for link vs. token for session) and how it's used. This is excellent at parameter explanation.

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 explains the flow of logging in, getting a token, and either using it as a config header or passing it to the tool. It distinguishes from sibling tools by its focus on 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 provides explicit usage guidance: it explains both the permanent setup (adding a header to server config) and the session-only option (passing the token), and when to call with no args to get the login link. This clearly instructs when and how to use the tool.

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