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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds genuine behavioral context: result visibility is scoped to 'locations you can see', pagination is capped at 200 per page with total/hasMore/nextOffset, and the scanCapped:true flag signals a 500-result search cap with the suggested remedy. None of this is derivable from the annotations.

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 purpose, then routing, then response/pagination behavior, then alternatives — a sensible order. It is dense and slightly over-packed (response-field details like location/region/playing sit close to filter guidance), but almost every clause carries actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; nonetheless the description covers pagination contract, visibility scoping, the scan cap, and routing to alternatives. Nothing needed to call this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by stating that all filters are optional and combine with AND, and by tying nodeId/status to the scan-cap workaround ('narrow with nodeId or status'), which gives practical meaning to those two params.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find screens') plus the exact filterable facets (name, status, location, tag). It also states its role in the broader toolset ('turn a screen name into its id for any other tool'), which no sibling could claim, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 explicit when-to-use ('Start here to turn a screen name into its id') and names two alternatives with their respective conditions: screen_health for single-screen diagnosis and list_open_alerts for open problems. This is the full when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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