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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about possible device states (approved, pending, revoked, expired), but it does not explain auth, pagination, or the full return shape.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is a sentence fragment ending in an ellipsis, making it terse to the point of being clipped.

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?

For a no-param read-only tool with rich annotations, invocation is straightforward. Yet there is no output schema and the description only partially describes the returned fields, leaving the '...' unresolved, so it is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. No further parameter explanation is needed.

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 identifies the resource precisely—machines signed in to the user's ce-net account—and lists key returned fields and device states. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like host_list or account_get, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer from the name and noun phrase that this is the tool for listing one's devices.

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