get_auth_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'gets' an OAuth2 authentication URL and that the URL should be accessed to complete authentication, but it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this initiates a new auth flow, if it requires prior setup, what happens after URL access, rate limits, or error conditions. For a security-related tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is extremely concise - just two sentences in Japanese that directly state what the tool does and what to do with its output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns (an OAuth2 authentication URL) and what to do with it (access to complete authentication). However, for an authentication tool in a security context, it should ideally provide more context about the OAuth2 flow, scopes, or how this integrates with other auth tools like 'authenticate' and 'check_auth_status'.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without attempting to document non-existent parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'OAuth2認証URLを取得します' (Get OAuth2 authentication URL). It specifies the verb ('取得します' - get/obtain) and resource ('OAuth2認証URL' - OAuth2 authentication URL). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'check_auth_status', which appear to be related authentication 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?

The description provides some usage context: 'このURLにアクセスして認証を完了してください' (Access this URL to complete authentication). This implies when to use the tool - as part of an OAuth2 flow to obtain an authentication URL. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'check_auth_status', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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