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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: an account-bound computer:write OAuth requirement and possible local owner approval prompts. It stops short of describing the response shape or whether finished sessions are included.

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, each carrying a distinct piece of information: scope, the alternative tool, and the auth prerequisite. The exclusions and routing come first, and no wording is redundant.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (session IDs and statuses), the authorization requirement, and where to go next. It could say a bit more about ordering or which session states are included, but nothing critical 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 compensate for. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not waste space 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List current commander search-session IDs and statuses') and explicitly scopes it with 'without reading file matches', which separates it from the results-oriented sibling. An agent can distinguish it from exza_get_commander_search_results without opening either 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?

It names the alternative explicitly ('Use exza_get_commander_search_results for results'), which tells the agent when this tool is the entry point versus a follow-up call. It does not state a when-not condition, such as what to do if no sessions are listed, but the routing is unambiguous.

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