login

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that a visible browser window is opened, that the flow is passwordless (e-mail + one-time code from login.vend.no), that the assistant must not type credentials, and that the session persists in the local profile. It omits whether the call blocks until login completes, what happens on timeout, and what failure looks like.

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-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then three short supporting sentences with no filler. Only a minor deduction for the stray formatting/line-break artifacts and the fact that the most important constraint (the wait window) is absent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the auth flow is well described. Still, for a tool whose only knob is a 300-second blocking timeout, neither the schema nor the description explains the wait/failure behavior, leaving the agent without a basis for setting the parameter or handling expiry.

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 single parameter timeout_seconds has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The reader cannot tell from either source that the call waits up to 300 seconds by default for the user to finish, or what happens when it expires.

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?

Specific verb and resource: opens a visible browser window on finn.no for manual user login. An agent can tell this is the interactive authentication step, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling login_status (which presumably checks whether a session exists).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention that the session is kept in the local profile hints that repeated logins aren't needed, and 'the assistant never types credentials' tells the agent to hand off to the user. But there is no explicit 'call this when X, use login_status when Y' routing, and no prerequisites or failure guidance.

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