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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: token handling, permanent non-expiring config header vs temporary session login, and no-args link retrieval. It makes the tool's side effects and state implications clear, and it does not contradict 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 information-dense: every sentence supports the tool invocation or setup, and it is front-loaded with the target audience and login flow. The phrasing is not overly verbose and avoids repeating the tool name or title.

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 the tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation paths and config-recommendation behavior well. It could be slightly more complete by stating what a successful token-based call returns or how to handle an invalid token, but it remains effective for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one optional parameter, the description fully compensates by showing the expected syntax `{ token: "<jwt>" }`, explaining the token is a JWT, and clarifying that calling with no arguments is valid and returns the login link. It adds real semantic meaning beyond the bare type declaration.

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 conveys an authentication flow: log in in the browser, copy the access token, and either call with a token or with no arguments to get a link. It is much more specific than the tool name alone, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool `connect`, so it misses the strongest level of differentiation.

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 no arguments to get the login link, paste the token for a session-only login, and preferably add the token to the server config as a permanent header. It also clearly explains the trade-off between the permanent connection and session-only login, which is exactly the kind of practical guidance an agent needs.

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