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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the `features` block reflects the device's claimed capabilities and may be inaccurate, and that `power_state` only indicates the box's awake state, not display attachment, which can cause screenshots to fail. This goes beyond a simple status report and helps the agent avoid misinterpretation. It doesn't describe the return format, but for a read-only status tool that's acceptable.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, then the usage context, then two critical caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure guides the agent from general to specific, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it reports, when to use it, and the two key behavioral nuances (features reliability and power_state meaning). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result without additional lookups.

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 single parameter `udid` is already documented in the schema as 'Apple TV UDID or name,' and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so it earns the baseline 3 for relying on the schema rather than adding extra semantic guidance.

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 explicitly states the tool reports on an Apple TV's pairing status, wake state, foreground app, and current playback. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('Apple TV'), and distinguishes it from sibling ios_tv_* tools by framing it as the 'right first call' that works on unpaired TVs, making its role unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage guidance: it is the first call to make, and 'nothing else here works on an unpaired TV,' which tells the agent when to use it and why it precedes other operations. It also provides caveats about the `features` and `power_state` fields that affect how results should be interpreted, helping the agent decide next steps.

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