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 description's job is to add beyond that — and it does, disclosing the OAuth scope requirement, which is invisible in the annotations. It stops short of describing what a status result looks like or how an unreachable/failed probe is surfaced, which matters for a reachability check.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary directive ('Use first'), then disambiguation, then prerequisite. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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 zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, ordering, disambiguation, and auth. The one remaining gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no description of what 'connection state' actually returns, leaving the agent to infer the result shape.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words restating an empty schema.

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 concrete check ('verify the paired computer is reachable') on a named resource, and explicitly separates itself from exza_get_system_info by saying it reports connection state rather than OS specifications. An agent can pick it out of a 55-tool sibling list without opening the schema.

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?

'Use first' gives explicit ordering guidance relative to the rest of the workflow, and the sibling contrast tells the agent which tool to choose for OS-level information instead. The prerequisite ('requires account-bound computer:read OAuth') is stated as a gating condition rather than left implicit.

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