mf_accounting_auth_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the default flow is OOB mode with the auth code shown on screen, which is non-obvious context. However, it says nothing about what the tool returns (an authorization URL), what happens if the user never authorizes, or how the flow is completed.

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 zero filler, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the mode detail. Nothing is wasted.

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 zero-required-param auth starter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and the default mode, which is the minimum viable. It still omits what the caller receives (the auth URL) and how the flow proceeds, leaving the agent to guess at the return contract.

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% and the sole parameter 'wait' is fully documented in the schema, including the note that it is ignored for backward compatibility. The description adds no parameter information, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: '会計API OAuth認証を開始する' (start OAuth authentication for the accounting API). The '会計' qualifier distinguishes it from the parallel mf_expense_auth_start and the generic mf_auth_start, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implies this is the entry point of an auth flow but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the obvious next step (mf_accounting_auth_callback) or to mf_accounting_auth_status for polling. The agent must infer the sequencing from the tool name alone.

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