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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining behavior in different modes: permanent config, session-only token login, and no-args link retrieval. It does not contradict the annotations, and it communicates that calling with no args does not authenticate but returns a link.

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 concise and front-loaded with the essential action, then uses 'Best' and 'Or' to structure the alternatives. Some phrasing like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' is slightly noisy, but every sentence carries useful guidance.

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 authenticate tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main call variants and their outcomes. It does not describe error scenarios or response shape, but those are not clearly required given the low complexity.

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 provides only a bare 'token' string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that token is a JWT and that it can be passed after the user pastes it, while no args is also valid for retrieving the login link.

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: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and explains that calling with no args returns the login link. It also distinguishes this from other tools by framing it as the authentication/login tool for the server.

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 explicitly gives usage alternatives: adding the token as an Authorization header for permanent access, or passing { token: "<jwt>" } for a session-only login. It also says how to obtain the login link by calling with no arguments.

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