login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action and prerequisite. It does not disclose session/credential behavior, side effects, failure modes, or how the env-var alternative interacts with a login call.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then add the prerequisite and the env-var alternative with 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 two-parameter auth tool, the description covers what it does, when it is needed, and an alternative setup. It omits response/error behavior, but no output schema exists and the usage context is otherwise clear enough.

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%, so the parameter descriptions already document both username and password. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond restating that login uses them, keeping this at baseline.

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 ('Log in') and resource ('Webhallen'), and clearly frames it as an authentication step distinct from the sibling wishlist/product tools. An agent can immediately tell this is the auth gate, not a data operation.

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 says this is required before using wishlist tools and offers an alternative (setting environment variables) that avoids the call. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases beyond the env-var alternative, but the auth context is clear.

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