List logins

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what annotations cannot: the data is scoped to the user behind the access token, the shape of each returned login, and the underlying endpoint GET /api/v1/logins. It does not mention pagination or empty-result behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the usage trigger, then the endpoint. The middle sentence is dense with parenthetical detail but every clause carries information. The trailing endpoint reference is slightly expendable but harmless.

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 takes on the burden of describing the return payload and does so thoroughly (account UUID, name, type, role, firm, PLANNR_ACCOUNT_UUID). Combined with 100% schema coverage on the lone optional param and full annotation coverage, only pagination/volume expectations are left unstated.

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% for the single parameter include_contact_details, which is fully documented in the schema itself. The description never mentions this parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the exact resource (the logins belonging to the token's user) and enumerates what each entry contains: account UUID, name, type (employee/client), role, firm, and the server's acting account. No sibling tool covers logins, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from the list_/get_ pairs for clients, tasks, plans and cases.

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 states a trigger: 'Use it to find the account UUID for PLANNR_ACCOUNT_UUID.' That is a concrete when-to-use. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but there is no competing login tool among the siblings, so the absence is minor.

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