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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-openWorld behavior. The description adds meaningful auth context beyond that: no local pairing required for this call, while app access requires separate local pairing consent. That is genuine added behavioral value.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return value, and the secondary pairing caveat follows. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and the description confirms the returned value plus the pairing precondition. It is nearly complete for such a simple zero-parameter read tool, though the phrasing around 'local pairing consent' remains slightly opaque.

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 schema cannot be deficient and the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the parameter side.

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: 'Return the signed-in Ceraph account ID.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the remote_* connection siblings, which deal with remote sessions rather than local account identity.

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 implies when it can be used by noting 'no local pairing is needed for this check,' which is a useful precondition, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives relative to the sibling tools. Usage is left to inference.

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