Sign out of Interactive Brokers

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, open-world, non-read-only, non-destructive; the description adds the substantive detail that the tool operates on both sides (remote revocation plus local credential deletion), which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs. It does not clarify what happens if no session exists or that re-authentication is required afterwards, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single sentence with a colon that front-loads the action and then enumerates the two effects. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essential effects. Minor omissions are the post-condition (agent must sign in again) and error behavior when not signed in.

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; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter noise either.

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?

Names the exact operation (sign out of Interactive Brokers) and specifies the two concrete effects: token revocation at IBKR and local token deletion. This clearly distinguishes it from ibkr_sign_in and ibkr_status, which are the only siblings.

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 purpose makes the use case obvious (when you want to end the IBKR session), but the description never states when this should be preferred over simply letting a session lapse, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active session. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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