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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world. The description adds the 12 KB truncation limit, warns that content is potentially sensitive, discloses that it does not modify the clipboard, and names the required account-bound computer:write OAuth scope plus possible interactive local owner approval prompts — all non-obvious behavioral facts.

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 distinct information: capability and size cap first, non-mutation and sibling contrast second, permission requirements third. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 parameterless read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is nearly complete. The only minor omission is what the caller receives when the clipboard is empty or non-text, but the size cap and sensitivity warning cover the essentials an agent needs before invoking 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond noting that it reads whatever is currently in the clipboard. No parameter-level gaps exist.

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 and resource (read clipboard text) plus the 12 KB cap, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling exza_write_clipboard_text. An agent knows exactly what this tool does and what it does not do without opening any 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?

Gives clear preconditions for use: elevated OAuth (computer:write) plus any prompted local owner approval, and points to the write sibling as the opposing operation. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when' beyond the write/router distinction, but the prerequisite framing is strong enough for correct selection.

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