migros_login_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers the one non-obvious trait: the tool alone cannot finish the OAuth flow because PKCE requires a browser, so this is a partial-step tool. It does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it requires prior authentication, or whether the URL exposes secrets, which keeps it short of 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?

Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the follow-up constraint second. Nothing is wasted, and the key caveat is not buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be narrated here. For a zero-parameter, read-style helper, the description covers what the tool produces and how the flow finishes. The phrase 'client parameters' remains loosely specified, but the output schema likely resolves that.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-coverage baseline of 4 applies. The description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the empty schema, and it correctly does not pretend to.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Show the OAuth authorize URL and client parameters this device would use.' An agent understands it retrieves an OAuth URL rather than performing the login. It does not differentiate itself from auth-adjacent siblings such as migros_status or migros_request, but no sibling is close enough to create real ambiguity.

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 second sentence implicitly sets the usage boundary by directing the agent to complete the flow with the local `migros-login` CLI because PKCE needs a browser. That is useful routing information, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no mention of prerequisites such as an existing session or device identity.

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