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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the code is single-use, never echoed back, and is exchanged for a session token. This adds useful context beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention error behavior or subsequent token storage.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 covers the core login flow and code handling clearly. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The only gap is the unexplained base_url parameter and edge-case handling, but for a simple login-completion tool, this is sufficient.

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 description gives meaning to the 'code' parameter by explaining it as a one-time browser-displayed code, but it does not mention the optional 'base_url' parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate for all parameters; it only partially does.

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 completes an OAuth login by exchanging a one-time code for a session token, explicitly referencing the initiating sibling tool brainkb_globus_login. This distinguishes it from other authentication tools in the sibling list.

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 explicitly says the login was started with brainkb_globus_login, making the prerequisite and flow clear. It doesn't list alternatives or exclusions, but the reference to the initiating tool provides strong contextual guidance for when to use this tool.

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