iec_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the security model (credentials typed on the page, never in chat) and the already-signed-in return behavior. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or whether calling it has side effects on an existing session.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the security constraint and edge-case behavior. No filler, though the parenthetical is dense.

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 covers purpose, the security-relevant interaction model, and the already-signed-in case. The main gap is not stating how the sign-in link should be presented to the user or its validity window.

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 of 4 applies, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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 ('Get the link where the user signs in to IEC') and clarifies the mechanics (ID and one-time code entered on that page, not in chat). It is clearly distinct from a plain 'log in' action, though it does not explicitly name siblings like iec_session_status.

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: call this to obtain a sign-in link when the user is not authenticated, and it notes it 'Returns the status when already signed in.' However, it never explicitly routes between this tool, iec_session_status, and iec_logout, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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