auth_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful side effect — that a global Bearer token is set for all subsequent requests — which is the key behavior for an auth tool. But it omits token lifetime/persistence, whether repeated calls are safe, and error behavior, so a 3 rather than higher.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the side effect. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

For a one-parameter auth tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and the global side effect adequately. It would be more complete with a note on token persistence/expiry, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('GDEX API key (UUID format)'). The description adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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 ('Authenticate') plus the resource/credential type ('GDEX API key') and its effect. Clear enough to select it over the dozens of trading/getter siblings, but it does not distinguish itself from the other auth-related siblings (oauth_login, managed_sign_in, build_sign_in_payload), so it stops short of 5.

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 clause 'Sets the Bearer token for all subsequent requests' implicitly signals this is a prerequisite called before other tools, which is useful implied usage. However, it never states when to prefer it over oauth_login or managed_sign_in, nor any prerequisites or failure conditions.

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