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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and idempotent; description adds that token can be configured as permanent or ephemeral session, and explains user must log in via browser and copy the JWT. It clarifies that calling with no args returns a login link, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 bit long (multiple clauses) but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, best practice, and two invocation modes. It's reasonably structured, though could be tightened.

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 simple one-param tool with no output schema, the description covers how to invoke it, what happens with/without token, and the persistence options. It doesn't mention error handling or output format beyond 'link', but that's acceptable for this simple tool.

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 a single 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully explains the token parameter: it's an optional JWT that, when provided, authenticates the session; when omitted, the tool returns a login link. This compensates completely for the 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 handles authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents: user logs in via browser, copies an access token, and either configures it as a permanent header or passes it to this tool for a session. It explains the tool's role (obtaining a login link or accepting a token) and distinguishes itself by focusing on auth, unlike siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.

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?

Provides explicit invocation patterns: no args to get a link, or with a token for session-only login. It also gives a best-practice alternative (config header) for permanent connections. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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