start_school_login

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the URL is scoped to this PC, that it expires after 15 minutes, that no credentials are accepted as input, and how completion is detected. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express, and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=false (a creation action).

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (purpose, how-to, constraint, lifecycle/completion), with the action front-loaded ahead of the caveats. 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema action tool, the description covers the full interaction lifecycle: trigger, user-facing step, credential safety, expiry, and how to confirm completion. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and drive it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the 4 baseline applies. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating it does not accept password or cookie arguments, which reassures the agent no hidden input is 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it creates a PC-specific login-screen URL in response to a user's school-connection request. It also names the companion tool get_school_connection, giving the agent a clear boundary, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with every 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?

Explicits the trigger (user requests a school connection), the required follow-through (open the URL in a browser and have the user type their own credentials), a negative constraint (no password/cookie arguments), and the completion step via get_school_connection. Alternatives and conditions are all stated, nothing is left to inference.

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