Complete Thndr login

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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it blocks for up to timeoutSeconds, persists the session, and can return a pending status requiring a repeat call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the step position and action, then the waiting semantics, then the retry condition. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 usefully surfaces the return signal (authenticated=false with status pending) and the polling expectation. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's '(up to timeoutSeconds)' merely echoes the parameter name without adding format or default detail.

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 action (waits for approval, then stores the session) on a specific resource (the Thndr login session), and its 'Step 3 of 3' framing clearly separates it from the sibling login_verify_code and login_request_approval steps.

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 places the call in the login sequence and gives a concrete retry rule: if it returns authenticated=false with status pending, call again after the user approves. It doesn't name alternative siblings to avoid, but the step ordering plus retry condition cover the practical when-to-use case.

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