Auth Get Login Url

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses behavior the schema cannot: the return payload (an authorize URL) and the fact that it comes bundled with Russian-language instructions, which is a non-obvious output trait. It does not state whether the call has side effects, whether it requires an existing session, or why the flow is manual rather than redirect-based, leaving some behavioral gaps for a zero-annotation 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource returned, then the output shape, then the next step. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact and none repeats the title or schema.

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 description is not obliged to explain return values, yet it helpfully names the authorize URL and the accompanying instructions. For a zero-parameter, zero-annotation tool the only real gap is that it does not clarify authentication prerequisites or side effects, which matters because no annotations supply that safety context.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add and the description is correct in not inventing any. The baseline score applies since nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get the hh.ru OAuth login URL") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling auth_exchange_code by positioning itself as the first step of a two-step flow. An agent can tell exactly what it produces without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly states the manual code-copy flow and directs the agent to pass the resulting code to auth_exchange_code, which is genuine when-and-what-next guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives such as auth_status for checking whether a login is already active, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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