authorize_connection

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it describes the browser automation ('automatically opens your browser'), the authentication flow, and a prerequisite (logged into QuantConnect account). This enhances understanding of the tool's interactive nature without contradicting annotations.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded (starts with the core purpose) and efficient. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains the browser automation, and the third provides a prerequisite. No wasted words, though minor formatting issues exist.

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 complexity (interactive authentication), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained). The description adds crucial context about the browser flow and prerequisites, making it fairly complete for an agent to use the tool effectively, though it could mention the parameter briefly.

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 0%, and the description does not mention parameters at all. However, there is only one parameter ('brokerage'), which is an enum with clear values (e.g., 'alpaca', 'tradestation'). The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, but with a single parameter and high schema clarity, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Authorize an external connection with a live brokerage or data provider.' It specifies the verb ('authorize') and resource ('external connection'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools, as no similar authorization tools are listed among siblings.

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 implies when to use this tool (for authorizing external connections) and provides prerequisites (must be logged into QuantConnect account in browser), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It offers some context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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