campus_school_login

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the click is performed 'without credentials' and will not attempt hidden auth endpoints or force an unavailable login, which reassures the agent this is a bounded, non-destructive interaction. It omits what happens on success/failure and any rate or IP-requirement detail.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by what it does not do. No filler, though the third sentence (IP diagnostic) is the least essential and slightly loose in placement.

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 tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the action and its non-goals adequately. The gap is the undocumented provider parameter and no guidance on failure handling, so it is only minimum-viable.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the single required 'provider' parameter or explains its enum values (csmar, cnrds). The enum is self-describing but the description adds no meaning about what provider selects or how it maps to the visible login button.

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: 'Click a unique visible school/institution login button, without credentials.' An agent can tell this is a campus login action distinct from open/inspect/search. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer when a login button is absent, so no explicit sibling differentiation.

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: it clarifies it will not guess hidden endpoints or force login, and offers a diagnostic ('missing button outside campus often means the user's IP was not recognized'). This helps the agent interpret failure, but it never says when to use this vs. campus_act or another sibling, nor what to do on failure.

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