login

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false): the flow is asynchronous with background polling, requires explicit human approval, never opens a browser, and never returns credentials. That last point pre-empts the main agent misconception for a sign-in 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?

Four short sentences, each doing work: what it starts, what to do with the output, how completion is signalled, and what it will not do. The primary action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the initiation semantics, the human-in-the-loop requirement, the async polling model, and the handoff to account_status.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. No misleading parameter detail is present.

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 resource: "Start Modisign device sign-in." It also names the completion-check path (account_status), so an agent can tell what this tool initiates versus what merely reports status on it.

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?

Gives clear operational context: show the verification URL/code to the user, the user approves via Google, polling continues in the background, and account_status is the place to check completion. It supplies no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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