Sign in with Google

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

Annotations only give openWorldHint and destructiveHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them: the browser step requires human intervention, the tool blocks while waiting for approval, the session token is stored afterward, and it cannot run on the hosted HTTP server. These are real behavioral traits an agent must plan around.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the human-in-the-loop constraint, then the required follow-up sequence, then the environment restriction. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no repetition.

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 exists, yet the description covers the interaction flow, the user's required action, what is persisted, the post-call workflow, and the transport limitation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless invocation and adds no misleading parameter claims.

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 ('Sign in to the Anythink platform with Google') and precisely describes the mechanism (opens browser to Google's consent screen, waits for approval, stores session token). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like login_direct, signup, and oauth_google_configure.

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?

Explicitly states what the tool does NOT do (pick a billing account or project) and names the exact follow-up calls in order: accounts_list then accounts_use, projects_list then projects_use. It also states the environment constraint (stdio only, not hosted HTTP). It does not contrast itself against login_direct/signup, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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