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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the bar is low. The description still adds real value beyond them: the required scope (connections:manage), the risk classification, and most importantly that the tool is currently unavailable under this authorization because the scope was not granted – a behavioral fact the agent cannot get from the schema or 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?

The content sentence is front-loaded and specific, followed by a compact metadata block. The 'Risco: read · Efeitos: Nenhum' portion partially restates what the annotations already encode, which is mild redundancy, but the whole thing is short and easy to parse.

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 read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (paired browsers with version and last activity) and the scope/availability situation. The only gap is that the exact shape of the returned records is not described, which is a minor omission given the simplicity of the tool.

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. The description correctly implies an unfiltered listing of paired extension browsers, and no per-parameter explanation is needed.

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 names the resource precisely – browsers with the extension paired to this operation – and states the returned fields (version and last activity), which lets an agent recognize it as a paired-device inventory read. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as get_connection_status or unpair_extension_device, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives like get_connection_status, nor prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual signal is the availability note ('INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização'), which conveys that the call will not succeed, but that is a runtime fact rather than selection guidance.

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