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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and non-read-only hints; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that, such as the distinction between permanent config-based auth and session-only pasted tokens, and that no-args calls return the login link. It does not fully describe the result envelope or failure modes, but the added context is useful and not contradicted by the 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 compact and front-loaded, packing all essential usage into a single informational paragraph. The mixed-language structure and "Best:" style is slightly informal, but no sentence is wasted and the content is directly actionable.

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 one-optional-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the main paths: get link, paste token, and configure permanently. It could say more about what the response contains, but the provided behavior is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in common situations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden. It explains that `token` is an optional JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and that omitting it triggers a link-based flow. This is enough to make the parameter meaningful beyond the bare `string` type in the input schema.

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 authenticates by providing a browser login link and accepting a pasted access token. It distinguishes the two main invocation modes (no args vs. token), making the purpose concrete, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling `connect` tool.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use the server config header for a permanent non-expiring connection, call with a pasted token for session-only login, or call with no args to obtain the link. It also explains when each approach is preferable, satisfying the when-to-use requirement.

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