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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavior: browser-based login, permanent vs session-only auth, non-expiring header connections, and the no-args link generation. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 single dense sentence but well-organized: context, browser flow, recommended permanent setup, then session-only fallback. It is not overly verbose, though it could be broken into shorter sentences for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return behavior more fully. It states that no-args returns the link, but it does not describe the response when a token is provided or how errors are surfaced. The core auth flow is covered, but response semantics are incomplete.

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 only defines 'token' as an optional string with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the token is a JWT, that it enables session-only login, and that omitting it returns the auth link. This adds meaningful semantics to the 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's role: authenticating via browser login, accepting a pasted JWT, or generating an auth link when called with no arguments. It is specific about the resource (authentication for this MCP server), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'connect'.

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 concrete usage guidance: the preferred permanent setup via config header, a session-only alternative by passing a token, and the no-args behavior to retrieve the link. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage modes are clear.

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