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 bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: fields are null when there is no plan or computer yet, which tells the agent how to interpret an empty response.

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?

Three tight sentences ordered as payload, trigger, and edge-case caveat. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations, and every sentence earns its place.

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-arg read-only status tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned, when to call it, and how to read null fields. No return-format explanation is needed since the output schema carries that, so nothing an agent needs 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to mis-specify; the schema is trivially complete. The description correctly adds no parameter chatter, which is the right choice for a no-arg tool.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource and enumerates exactly what is returned: plan, free trial with hours left, computer readiness, and the computer's email. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like myclawn_desktop_activity or myclawn_desktop_tasks, which report different data about the same computer.

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 two concrete trigger conditions: when the user asks about their MyClawn setup, or after a task reports the computer is still starting. It does not name alternative tools to prefer, but the triggers are specific enough to select this tool reliably.

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