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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds substantial extra context: the required `screen.view` permission, the hard limitation that the player cannot read TV/HDMI state (so a 'guided' checklist is a guess, not a detection), that only CEC-connected Signage Sticks produce `tv` rows, and that planned darkness is listed but excluded from counts. That is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs before trusting output.

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 the core purpose and the routing alternatives before the per-view detail. It is dense and long, but for a four-mode tool nearly every clause carries distinct information; a small amount of repetition between the view prose and the schema notes is the only waste.

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?

Output schema exists, so return shapes need not be re-explained, and the description instead supplies everything else an agent needs: view semantics, defaults/caps, detection limits, permission requirement, and sibling routing. Complete for a read-only diagnostic tool of this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents defaults and caps for `days` and `limit`. The description goes beyond that by explaining what each `view` enum value actually returns, giving the enum semantic weight the terse schema note ('see the tool description') deliberately defers.

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 ('Read one screen's health') and then enumerates the four modes of reading via `view`, each with a distinct purpose. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools an agent might otherwise pick (get_uptime_report, list_open_alerts, capture_device_frame).

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 per-view when-to-use guidance ('diagnose': for a screen that looks blank or wrong) and names three concrete alternatives with the condition that selects each: fleet/time window -> get_uptime_report, fleet-wide problems now -> list_open_alerts, live picture -> capture_device_frame. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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