Complete wallet login

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

Annotations are minimal (openWorldHint only), so the description bears the burden. It discloses that it stores the PASETO in the MCP session, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral details such as account creation on first signup, session replacement, or error behavior.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence that includes the endpoint and the key side effect. No wasted words, and the most important information is at the beginning.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description gives the core action and session storage but lacks flow context, prerequisites, and edge-case behavior. It is minimally workable but leaves significant gaps for a multi-step auth process.

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 adds no parameter information. Schema coverage is 75%, with flow_id lacking a description. Since the description doesn't compensate for that gap, parameters are only partially explained by the schema alone.

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 action ('Complete wallet login') and resource (wallet login), and includes the endpoint. It differentiates from sibling tools like auth_wallet_challenge by noting the PASETO session storage, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all related auth tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should follow auth_wallet_challenge or that it's the second step in a flow. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives noted.

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