Authorize an EVE character

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the side effect of opening a browser, that a URL is returned, and that the call blocks up to wait_seconds. It does not say what happens on timeout (error vs. pending), which is the one meaningful behavioral 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism before the repeat-use note and preset details. Every sentence carries information not present in the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes that the URL is returned as part of the result, and covers blocking behavior and preset semantics. The only missing piece is failure/timeout outcomes for a call that can legitimately not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains what each preset contains ('standard' = personal read plus fittings/mail/waypoint write, 'full' adds corporation scopes) and restates the wait_seconds default.

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: 'Starts EVE SSO login', and immediately describes the mechanism (opens browser, returns URL, waits). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like character_select, character_logout, and characters_list, and even calls out the repeat-use case (adding characters, re-authorizing).

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?

'Use again to add more characters or to re-authorize with more scopes' gives clear context for repeat invocation, and the scope presets imply when to pick 'full'. It stops short of explicit routing (e.g. 'call characters_list first to see already-authorized characters'), so no when-not guidance.

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