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

Annotations already indicate read-only false, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds context on the two operating modes (config header vs. token parameter) and that calling with no args yields a link, but does not disclose return format or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. Since annotations cover safety, the added detail justifies a 4.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose and then detailed options. It is concise but packs necessary information without fluff, earning a 4 for structure.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers both login flows, explains how to obtain the token, and how to invoke the tool. The presence of annotations and the tool's simplicity allow this level of completeness.

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 a string. The description explains the token is a JWT and specifies when to pass it: after the user pastes it, or omit to get the link. This adds meaningful usage semantics beyond the 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: authenticate for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.) via browser login and access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by clearly focusing on authentication, with specific instructions for both permanent and session-based login.

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 when-to-use guidance: recommends adding the token to server config for permanent connection, or using the token parameter for session-only login, or calling with no arguments to get the login link. This explicitly covers alternatives and steps.

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