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

Goes well beyond the annotations by enumerating the four possible outcomes (pending/denied/expired/approved), disclosing that the token is shown only once, and explaining that it must be sent as a Bearer header on every subsequent call. The non-idempotent, read-writing nature is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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-loads the prerequisite call and the core exchange, then packs the status/retry/token details into a single tight clause. No sentence is filler despite the dense use of parentheticals and em dashes.

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?

Covers ordering, retry behavior, all terminal states, and post-success token usage — everything an agent needs to drive this two-step auth flow correctly. Return-value detail is partly covered by the output schema, and the description fills the one-shot token caveat the schema cannot express.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole deviceCode parameter is already documented as coming from connect_account, so the description adds little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 action and resource — trading a deviceCode for an agent token — and anchors it to the sibling it follows (connect_account). An agent can distinguish this from connect_account without opening either 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?

Explicitly says to call it after connect_account and once the person has approved, and tells the agent to re-poll after `interval` seconds when the result is pending. The only gap is the absence of an explicit when-not-to-call or failure-escalation alternative.

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