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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not need to restate it. What the description adds is target-resolution behavior under multi-device accounts, which is genuinely useful. It still never says what "basic information" actually contains (OS, CPU, memory, hostname), leaving the agent to guess at the payload even though an output schema exists.

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 purpose and device-targeting guidance are front-loaded and earn their place. However, several sentences are meta-instruction filler rather than tool semantics: "Select this tool from the user's intent when it is the best match" and the entire sentence about the user not needing to mention ailinkany.com, MCP, a connector, or a plugin. That boilerplate dilutes an otherwise efficient paragraph.

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?

With six optional parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description's main burden is resolving target ambiguity across paired computers, which it does explicitly. The remaining optional context parameters are handled by the schema. The only real gap is the absence of any hint at what the returned "basic information" encompasses.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in structured fields and the baseline applies. The description reinforces device_name selection preference, which is a modest addition over the schema's own wording. It says nothing about retry_token, workspace_id, workflow_id, or ai_session_id, so it does not extend semantics meaningfully beyond the 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?

"Reads basic information from the target computer" gives a specific verb (reads) and resource (computer info) with a scope qualifier ("basic") that implicitly separates it from system_full_info and system_capabilities. It is clear on its own, but it never explicitly names those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary from the adjective "basic" rather than being told.

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?

Strong targeting rules: pass device_name when the user names a computer, omit the target for a single-computer account, and ask the user only when multiple computers are paired and the target is unclear. That resolves the primary selection ambiguity. It does not state when to prefer this over system_full_info or system_diagnose, so the sibling-choice guidance is incomplete.

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