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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope (which topics the guide covers and the iOS-device end goal) but does not state the delivery form — whether it returns instructional text to follow or performs any setup — and with no output schema that ambiguity stays unresolved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence identifies the deliverable, the target platform, the goal, and the topic list with no filler. The colon-terminated topic enumeration is slightly dense but reads efficiently.

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 one-parameter, read-only, non-destructive guide tool, the description covers scope, platform, end goal, and content coverage adequately. The main residual gap is what the caller actually receives (format/length of the guide), which matters somewhat given there is no output schema.

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% and the single parameter is an enum of macos/linux with its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates both OS values but adds no new semantics, such as behavioral differences between the two paths, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 states a specific verb and resource — a step-by-step setup guide for a macOS or Linux machine enabling agent use from an iPhone/iPad — and enumerates the covered topics (SSH, tmux, Tailscale, keep-awake, SSH key, verify). This clearly separates it from tmux_howto (a single-topic howto) and troubleshoot_connection, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the setup framing: this is the onboarding path, while troubleshooting or tmux-specific questions belong elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the machine must already be reachable), so routing relies on inference from sibling names rather than the description.

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