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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the file is not shipped in npm packages or the container, so this is the only reliable source; using stale copies causes login failures. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining why the tool is critical and what happens if it's not used.

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 dense paragraph of about 100 words, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place—purpose, why it's needed, specific use cases. No wasted words.

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?

The description explains what is returned (contents, sha256, wiring, verification) and why it's needed. Without an output schema, it could be more explicit about the return structure (e.g., object with fields), but it still provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's value and invoke 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage (trivially). Description adds no parameter info because none are needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; no further value needed.

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 verb 'Returns' and the specific resource 'public/tide_dpop_auth.html', along with additional items like sha256, rewrite/CSP wiring, and verification instructions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are about other Tide aspects (adapter, branding, etc.) and not about DPoP authentication assets.

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?

Explicitly provides three specific conditions for calling this tool: when DPoP is enabled (on by default), when login fails with TIDE-SWE-UNHANDLED, or before copying the file from another source. It also contrasts with the alternative (searching GitHub for a stale copy that breaks functionality).

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