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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the specific outputs (clientToken, Unity connect snippet) and implies the operation is read-only by calling it 'info.' It also hints at cost/restriction by saying 'only call when explicitly asks,' which is useful behavioral context. While it doesn't explicitly state safety (read-only), the word 'info' and the nature of the tool make it clear enough.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and outputs; the second gives the usage condition. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough: it names the output fields (clientToken, Unity snippet) and gives a clear usage condition. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but these are not critical for such a simple tool. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call and what to expect.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the parameter 'device' is described as 'device name or sid from list_devices.' The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. This is a baseline 3 because the schema handles the semantics fully.

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 ('Full info for one device') with a clear resource, and distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns clientToken and a Unity connect snippet. This is unique among device_ping, device_status, and list_devices, so the agent knows exactly what this tool offers.

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?

Explicitly says 'Only call this when the user explicitly asks for the token or connect instructions.' This provides a clear when-to-use condition and implicitly tells when not to use it (for routine status or ping checks). It effectively routes the agent to the right sibling without naming them explicitly.

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