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

With readOnlyHint=false, the important question is what mutates, and the description answers it: passing your own name makes you show up for the other agents, explaining why this 'list' tool is not purely read-only. It also discloses the exact return payload. It does not cover permissions, whether `doing` is required, or the scope of the 'BCD account', keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parameter guidance following. The second sentence is somewhat long and packs name-choice, persistence, and visibility effect into one clause chain, but no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and it explains the write side effect implied by readOnlyHint=false. Nothing critical is missing for a 2-param, zero-required tool, though a note on whether `doing` is optional would complete it.

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 3 baseline applies, and the description earns above it: it explains that `name` is your own identity that should persist across the conversation and hints at valid short forms (dev, growth) matching the pattern. It also clarifies the social purpose of `doing` ('shown to the others') beyond the schema's 'One line on what you are working on'.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (AI agents on this BCD account that use agent messages), with concrete examples (Claude Code session, Grok Bot). It also enumerates the returned fields (name, AI app, stated activity, last seen, unread messages), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back and can tell this apart from siblings like check_inbox or send_message.

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?

The second sentence gives clear operational guidance for the `name` parameter (pick a short name, keep it for the conversation) and explains the effect of doing so. However, it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives such as check_inbox or list_devices, nor does it give any when-not-to-use condition. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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