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

With annotations declaring idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds behavioral context: explains how the token is used, distinguishes permanent vs session login, and indicates that calling with no args yields a login link. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no redundant information. The structure is efficient, though slightly dense in the middle.

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 authentication flow, the meaning of the token, and the two modes of use, making it functionally 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 has 0% coverage for the token parameter, but the description explains that token is a JWT pasted by the user, and that it is optional (no args gets the link). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 function: authenticate via browser login, obtain an access token, and optionally accept that token as a JWT. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the authentication flow and token handling.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: recommends adding an Authorization header to the server config for a permanent connection, or passing a token for session-only login, or calling with no args to get the link. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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