authenticate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'Authenticate with Interactive Brokers' without explaining side effects (e.g., session creation), required preconditions, or consequences of failure. The one-line description is insufficient for the agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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: two sentences, zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage example immediately follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does and how to invoke it, but omits any context about prerequisites, return values, or integration with sibling tools. The lack of output schema and behavioral transparency leaves gaps.

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 input schema has one parameter ('confirm', type boolean, const true) with 0% schema description coverage. The description's usage example ('{ "confirm": true }') merely restates the schema constraint and does not explain why confirm is required or its semantic role. The agent learns nothing beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Authenticate with Interactive Brokers.' This is a specific verb ('Authenticate') and resource ('Interactive Brokers'), and it uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like 'get_account_info' or 'place_order'.

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 a usage example ('Usage: { "confirm": true }') but does not specify when to use the tool (e.g., before other operations) or when not to use it. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or alternatives is given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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