Connect Account

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the actual mechanism: a verification URL and code are returned for the user to enter in a browser, credentials arrive server-side afterward, and all subsequent calls are billed to that account with tier/credit/rate-limit consequences. This is real behavioral context the readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false flags cannot convey. It stops short of saying what happens if invoked again while already logged in or whether a previously issued code is invalidated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition followed by the mechanism and the billing side effect. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (when to call) comes first.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger, the return shape (URL + code), and the downstream consequence of authenticating. The only missing piece an agent might need is the already-authenticated case and how it should be handled.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or misdescribes the empty schema.

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 concrete verb and outcome — authenticating the user's Open Ephemeris account — and gives the exact user phrasings ('connect', 'sign in', 'log in', 'link my account') that map to it. This clearly separates it from auth_status and auth_logout siblings without needing their schemas.

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 anchors invocation to user intent phrases, which is the right trigger signal for an auth tool. It does not state the inverse case (e.g. 'do not call if already authenticated — use auth_status instead'), so the exclusion guidance is implied rather than stated.

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