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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable context on the two authentication modes (permanent vs session-only) and the flow of getting a link or accepting a JWT. It does not mention side effects or token validation, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 longer than a one-liner but every sentence adds essential info. It is front-loaded with context and provides structured alternatives. Slightly informal phrasing and redundant 'log in in the browser' wording prevent a perfect score.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key inputs and behavior but does not explicitly state return values for the token-provided path. It is complete enough for an agent to understand how to initiate authentication and handle the two typical cases.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter is a JWT that the user pastes, and that calling with no args returns a link. This gives complete meaning to otherwise bare 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 for IDE agents, with specific flow: log in browser, copy token, and either add to config or paste. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing solely on authentication, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly explains two usage modes: adding token to config for permanent connection (recommended) or pasting token for session-only login, plus no-args call to get link. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and even recommends the best practice, going beyond basic usage.

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