complete_authorization

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds genuinely useful, non-obvious context: the callback URL must contain code and state, and the X codes expire ~30 seconds after approval, which is a critical timing constraint for the agent. It omits what happens on failure/expiry, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Two tight sentences with the fallback condition front-loaded, followed by the time-sensitive expiry warning. No filler; each clause carries information, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 single-parameter OAuth-completion tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the value's source and contents, and the expiry constraint. It could note expected results or expiry behavior, but nothing essential for invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter already has an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3). The description adds meaning by telling the agent where to obtain the value (the browser address bar) and what it must contain (code and state).

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 gives a specific verb+resource (finish/complete the add_account authorization) and explicitly frames itself as the fallback path versus the automatic callback listener. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling add_account and other account tools without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly states the trigger condition: use this when the automatic callback listener is unavailable. The alternative (the automatic path) is implied, but there is no explicit 'do not use this in the normal flow' exclusion, keeping it just short of a full 5.

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