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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the call has a side effect of refreshing the agent's tool list, which an agent would not infer from a 'status' name. It stops at 4 because it says nothing about failure modes when unpaired or unreachable.

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 sentences, zero filler. The capability list comes first, then the trigger condition, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does describe the shape of the answer (pairing state, reachability, current page, offered tools), which is what the agent needs. It is slightly thin on what an unpaired/unreachable response looks like, but nothing required to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters carry substantive descriptions (resumeKey session-attachment rationale, includeSchemas payload expansion), so the baseline applies. The prose itself adds nothing about either parameter, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 ('Show') with a precisely enumerated set of facts it returns: pairing state, reachability, studio page, and offered tools. That scope is clearly distinct from genmc_pair (establishing pairing), genmc_call (invoking), and genmc_docs, so an agent can pick it without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit trigger — 'call it when studio tools are missing from your tool list (the user switched studios)' — which is a concrete, recognizable condition. It does not name exclusions or point at genmc_pair as the alternative when not yet paired, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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