meineba_login_start

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) are consistent but thin; the description adds real behavioral context: the call returns a link the USER opens in their own browser, authentication happens on sso.arbeitsagentur.de, and the agent must never ask for or handle the password. That is exactly the security constraint an agent needs for an auth tool.

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 clauses, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the security instruction. The semicolon construction packs the critical 'never handle the password' rule compactly without burying it.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value need not be explained in depth, and the description nonetheless confirms it returns a sign-in link. For a 1-parameter auth-initiation tool it covers the essential constraints, though it omits the follow-up step (login_finish).

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 single enum documents all six services in detail, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description only adds 'for one service', which restates the schema rather than extending it. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: starting a login to the user's Meine BA account, scoped to 'one service'. An agent can tell it is the entry point of the auth flow, but the description never names meineba_login_finish or meineba_logout, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by 'start a login' in a set that also contains login_finish, but the description never says what to do next or when to choose this over other entry points. It gives strong in-flow guidance (open the link yourself, do not handle the password) rather than when-to-use guidance.

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