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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and description aligns with that: no contradictory claims. Adds context that config-based auth is non-expiring vs session-based, and that called with no args returns a link. Doesn't mention side effects but enough info.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with audience and core action, then branches into two methods. Every clause adds value; no fluff.

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?

Tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema). Description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, two ways to use, and what happens with no args. Complete for its complexity.

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?

Schema has only one optional parameter 'token' with 0% coverage. Description explains the token is a JWT and used when pasted by user. Though it doesn't detail format beyond JWT, it gives functional context. Baseline for low coverage would be lower, but description clarifies usage.

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 explicitly states the tool authenticates the user by obtaining an access token via browser login and provides two methods: adding to config as a header or pasting the token. It clearly distinguishes from siblings involving vehicle consultation, marketplace, etc.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on two usage scenarios: permanent config setup vs session-only login, and specifies exact call patterns (with or without token argument). Mentions IDE agents like Cursor, making context clear.

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