Integrations: oauth callback url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: it is computed locally without an API call, scoped to this project's dashboard redirect, and identical across every provider. That is genuinely useful and non-redundant.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core output, then scoping/computation detail, then the workflow placement. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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?

No output schema, but the description states what is printed (the redirect URL) and that it is project-scoped and provider-independent. For a zero-arg, no-API read, this is complete enough to call correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to explain. Nothing is missing here.

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 ('Print') plus resource ('the redirect URL to add to OAuth app configurations'), and it explicitly disambiguates from siblings by naming integrations_oauth_configure and integrations_oauth_status. An agent can tell exactly what this returns and how it differs from the other oauth tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit ordering guidance: give the URL to the user 'before integrations_oauth_configure'. It also names the alternative (integrations_oauth_status) and how it differs (shows the URL alongside provider setup state), so the when-to-use choice is fully resolved.

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