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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral constraints, namely one-time use, original credentials, and an expiry window, but it does not clarify what resolution returns or how invalid/expired credentials are handled.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and contains no filler. The expiry constraint follows immediately and 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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers invocation prerequisites and validity period. However, with no output schema, it omits what the status resolution actually returns, which is a meaningful gap for a status-oriented tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both required parameters and adds that they are the original pairing ID and pairing code, but it does not explain format, validation, or error behavior beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 names a specific resource (one-time trusted-device pairing) and context (after browser enrollment), but the verb 'Resolve' is ambiguous for a tool named 'status' and does not explicitly say it retrieves or checks pairing status. It also does not name or differentiate the sibling pairing_create tool.

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 timing guidance: use after the browser has enrolled and before the pairing capability expires. It also states the required original pairing ID and code, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly describe failure when expired.

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