teams_login

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does a decent job: it discloses that a real browser window is launched, that credentials/session persistence is automatic, and critically that the call is non-blocking and returns before sign-in completes. It doesn't say what happens on failure or whether user presence is mandatory at the machine.

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 compact clauses carry the action, the side effect, and the follow-up tool. The asynchronous caveat is front-loaded in the second sentence exactly where an agent needs it before deciding what to do next.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free side-effecting tool, the essential facts an agent needs — it launches a UI, the user must act, the call returns early, and status must be polled via teams_status — are all present.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline score applies; no parameter claims are made or 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?

Names a specific action (open Chrome for Teams sign-in) applied to a specific resource, and makes clear this is an authentication flow rather than data access. The mention of teams_status as the follow-up distinguishes it from every listing/messaging sibling.

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?

Implies the condition that selects this tool (a sign-in is needed) and explicitly routes the agent to teams_status afterwards, which is the correct next step. It stops short of stating the negative case, e.g. not to call it when a session already exists.

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