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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is added context; it delivers by disclosing the exact content states a screen can be in, the presence of an optional end time, the extra account-level fields (time zone, local time), and the cursor-based paging contract. It does not cover ordering or what 'online status' values look like, which keeps it just short of 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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then filtering, then pagination — a sensible order for an agent. It is a single dense block with a couple of expendable phrases ('if there is one'), but nothing is wasteful enough to obscure the content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: it names the per-screen fields, the account-level fields, and the pagination token. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and the possible values of online status.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description restates query and screen_id semantics and the next_cursor-to-cursor flow, adding little beyond the schema, and never mentions limit or its default of 25. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('list the connected team's screens') and immediately enumerates the returned fields: online status, current content type (normal, pushed, scene, mirroring), end time, time zone and local time. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_scenes or search_content, which retrieve different objects.

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 explains how to narrow results (query or screen_id) and how to page, which implies the retrieval use case, but it never states when to prefer this over list_scenes or search_content, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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