Sign in to Interactive Brokers

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

The description adds substantive context beyond the annotations: it discloses the requested permission scope (read + order-draft only, never order submission) and the asynchronous return behavior. With openWorldHint and non-destructive already declared, this covers the main agent concerns, though it says nothing about session lifetime or failure modes.

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 tight sentences. The action and permission scope are front-loaded, and the follow-up workflow ('user approves... then asks again') is placed where it is needed. No wasted text.

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, no-output-schema authentication trigger, the description covers the essentials: what starts, what access is granted, that it returns immediately, and what the agent should do next. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required and adds no misleading parameter claims.

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 ('Start signing in to Interactive Brokers') and scopes it to browser-based authentication. It is clearly distinct from ibkr_sign_out and ibkr_status by action, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 final clause explains the execution model: the call returns immediately, the user approves in the browser, and the agent must 'ask again' afterwards. That is real usage guidance for an async tool, but it offers no explicit when-not condition or named alternative.

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