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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. Beyond that it discloses real behavioral context: the SDK version that ships the file (0.14.34), that older SDKs and the TideCloak container do not, and that a stale GitHub copy posts to window.parent and breaks the popup fallback.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the version caveat and the call triggers. Every clause carries information (version, failure codes, stale-copy pitfall), though the density of error strings and file paths makes it slightly heavy for a single call.

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 carries the return burden and does so fully: install command, sha256, rewrite/CSP wiring, and verification. It also supplies the failure modes that justify invocation, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the exact install command for public/tide_dpop_auth.html, the DPoP relay page, plus its sha256, next.config.ts wiring, and verification steps. This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like tide_doctor or tide_scaffold, which an agent can rule out without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggers: call whenever DPoP is enabled (noting it is on by default), on login failure with TIDE-SWE-UNHANDLED or 'Popup DPoP verification failed to load', and before copying the file from anywhere else. It also names the alternative source to avoid (the stale GitHub copy), so when-not-to-source-elsewhere is covered.

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