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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the new display starts offline, requires admin scope, and returns setup and pairing URLs. This adds meaningful behavioral context. It doesn't describe all edge cases, but the annotations already cover read-only, destructive, open-world, and idempotency traits.

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 well-structured: it states the core purpose first, then usage guidance, then access requirements and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 this complexity, the description covers purpose, when to use, auth requirement, initial state, and return payload. Combined with the fully documented schema and output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic value by mentioning org_id and the pairing URL return, but it does not need to explain each parameter further.

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 uses a specific verb–resource pair ('Pre-provisions a display') and clarifies that the display is created without hardware, either personally or in an organization. It explicitly distinguishes itself from pair_by_code, so the agent can confidently differentiate it from the closest sibling.

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 description gives explicit guidance: for physical screens ALWAYS prefer pair_by_code, and create_display should only be used to prepare a display before hardware exists or for virtual/API-only displays. This clearly states when to use and when not to use the tool, naming the alternative.

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