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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so description carries the burden. It discloses behavior: with token, it logs in; without, it returns a link. It also explains the permanent vs session-only distinction. No contradictions with 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 front-loaded with purpose, then covers best practice and alternatives in a compact, well-structured manner. Each sentence adds value: purpose, permanent config, session login. No redundant or filler content.

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 it's a simple authentication tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers both usage modes and setup guidance. It lacks details on error handling or post-auth state, but that's not essential for this tool's 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?

Schema has one optional string 'token' with 0% description coverage, so description must explain it. It does: token is the JWT the user pastes, and calling without args returns the login link. This fully clarifies the parameter's role and optionality.

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: authenticate for MCP.AI in IDE agents via browser login and token. It specifies the exact action (log in, copy access token) and distinguishes from unrelated siblings like marketplace or report_bug 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?

It provides clear usage context: best to add token to config for permanent access, or paste for session-only login. It explains when to call with token vs no args. Though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives for authentication, the sibling list suggests no other auth tool, so guidance is adequate.

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