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

The description clarifies side effects (session creation), persistence ("permanent, non-expiring" vs "session-only"), and behavior with no arguments ("get the link"). This goes well beyond the annotations, which only specify idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, by explaining the actual state changes involved.

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 block of text with multiple clauses and parentheticals, making it dense and slightly run-on. It front-loads the main action but could be improved with bullets or clearer separation of ideas. Every sentence adds value, but structure is suboptimal.

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 tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers invocation variants and configuration steps. It doesn't mention error cases or return format, but for the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the 'token' parameter as a pasted JWT and describes the no-argument behavior (returns a login link). This compensates for the missing parameter documentation in 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 implies authentication through imperative instructions ("log in in the browser, copy the access token") but never explicitly states the tool's purpose as a noun phrase. It's clear from context but indirect. It does not explicitly differentiate from 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 explicit guidance on the best approach ("Best: add it to this server's config...") and contrasts permanent vs. session-only login methods. It does not compare to sibling tools, but it clearly explains when to use each invocation type.

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