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), and the description adds material context beyond them: the output can expose private device and network details, results should only be shared with approved recipients, and the call requires account-bound computer:write OAuth plus possible local owner approval. Those auth and privacy disclosures are not expressible in the annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then privacy, then the sibling alternative, then auth requirements. Each carries distinct information, though 'without modifying it' partially restates readOnlyHint and is mild 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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so by listing the data categories. Auth prerequisites and privacy handling are also stated, so nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed to scope the read.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource and enumerates exactly what is read: OS identity, CPU, memory, uptime, and non-loopback network addresses, scoped to 'the paired computer'. This distinguishes it from file/process/clipboard siblings without needing to open their schemas.

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 explicitly routes the agent away from a near-neighbor: use exza_get_connection_status for EXZA connection/approval state, which does not report hardware specs. That is a clear selection rule, but no guidance is given relative to other system-adjacent siblings such as exza_list_system_processes.

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