auth_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the user-visible side effect (a browser window opens), the blocking wait bounded by wait_seconds, the partial-success return shape (waiting: true), and the 5-minute continuation window. It stops short of saying what happens on hard failure or whether the window is closed afterwards.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the action, then the wait semantics, then the trigger condition. No filler; each sentence adds operational information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the one returned field the agent must branch on (waiting: true) and the required follow-up call. Minor gap: no statement about failure modes or whether an already-valid session short-circuits.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter — and it does: wait_seconds is a timeout after which control returns even though sign-in continues. That 'continues for up to 5 minutes' nuance is genuinely unavailable from the schema, including the default of 45.

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 concrete action (open a browser window) and its goal (one-time user sign-in), which is unmistakably distinct from the sibling auth_status, which it explicitly names as the follow-up step.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when a write tool returns AUTH_EXPIRED') and an explicit exclusion ('Read-only tools (catalog, quote, read_price_list) never need this'), naming concrete siblings. An agent can decide whether to call this without any further inference.

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