Sign in to NightMarquee

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: it requires an external browser approval, shows a short code, and must be run twice. This is valuable interactive context that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) only hint at. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the step-by-step flow is conveyed efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the interactive nature, the need for a second run, and the purpose. With an output schema present and no parameters, the agent has enough to invoke it correctly. It could optionally mention prerequisites (e.g., already having a NightMarquee account) but that is minor.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially). Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds context about the sign-in flow but not parameter-level semantics since none exist.

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: 'Connect a NightMarquee account' and explains the benefit ('so Unlimited prompts work here'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings (search, get, whoami) by describing a sign-in flow, which is unique among the listed 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 clear usage context: it is needed for Unlimited prompts and involves a two-step process ('Run it again after approving'). It implicitly tells the agent when to use it (when sign-in is needed), though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives. Since no sibling does sign-in, this is sufficient.

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