generate_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication purpose but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (session token, user data, etc.), error conditions, rate limits, or security implications. For an authentication tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides crucial usage context. There's zero wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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?

For an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (critical for session generation), error handling, or how the generated session should be used. The description focuses only on the input side, leaving the output behavior unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'request_token' but doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Generate session') and the mechanism ('using request token'), specifying it's for completing authentication after user authorization. It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on authentication rather than trading operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'login' which might be related.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'After user authorizes, call this with the request_token from the redirect URL to complete authentication.' This gives a specific sequence and prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternatives like the 'login' sibling tool.

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