auth_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency. It discloses that the browser is visible (not headless), requires manual user interaction (phone and SMS), and persists the session to a local profile. It does not mention error handling or failure modes, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 concise and well-structured, using only two sentences to convey the action, method, and outcome. There is no unnecessary detail or ambiguity.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a login action, including the interaction model and session persistence. It does not mention the output schema, but that is likely defined elsewhere; overall, it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to elaborate on. The schema coverage is effectively 100%, meriting a neutral baseline score. The description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist.

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: opening a visible browser for manual login to cian.ru via phone and SMS. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (auth_status, search_offers, get_offer) by being the explicit authentication action, while the others focus on status or searching.

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 the tool—when manual login is needed—but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as auth_status for checking existing sessions. The usage context is inferable from the name and sibling set, but not stated directly.

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