sso_login_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the output (IdP authorization URL or SAML redirect) and mentions the optional state parameter for CSRF protection. It does not mention side effects or authentication requirements beyond enterprise feature, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 concise (three lines) and well-structured: primary action first, context ('Enterprise feature'), output explanation, then parameter description. No wasted words.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input and output sufficiently. It explains what is returned but could mention prerequisite setup or error conditions, though not critical.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'state' parameter's purpose ('optional opaque state parameter for CSRF protection'), adding meaning beyond the schema's name and type.

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 gets the SSO login URL for redirecting users to the identity provider, and specifies it returns OIDC or SAML URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sso_exchange_code and sso_status.

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 mentions it's an 'Enterprise feature,' giving context, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. It implies usage for initiating SSO login but lacks clear guidelines.

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