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

Description discloses behavior: returns link if no token, authenticates with token, and differentiates permanent vs session outcomes. Annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true) are not contradicted; description adds valuable context about user interaction and persistence.

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?

Description is somewhat verbose but organized into clear segments (MCP.AI, Best, Or). It avoids redundancy and each sentence adds necessary detail. Slightly longer than ideal but justified by the dual-mode explanation.

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?

Despite no output schema, description covers the full user journey: initial login, token acquisition, two ways to use the token, and the effect of each. It provides enough context for an agent to decide and execute correctly.

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 single 'token' parameter is not described in the schema, but the description explains it as the JWT copied from browser, and clarifies that it's optional (no args triggers link retrieval). 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?

Description clearly states the tool authenticates by obtaining a token, with explicit steps and two usage modes (permanent via config or session via token). It distinguishes itself from other tools like connect or marketplace by focusing 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?

Provides explicit instructions: log in browser, copy token, then either add to config for permanent or pass token for session. Also explains the no-args behavior (get link). Clearly indicates when and how to use.

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