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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond that by specifying the scope ('paired to the signed-in ReMCP account') and the information returned (online status). This implies authentication requirements and that the result is account-scoped, which is useful behavioral knowledge.

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 description is two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the usage condition ('when the target computer is not already unambiguous') before stating the action. 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 simple, parameterless device-listing tool, the description is complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, and notes that it reports online status. An output schema is present, so return format details are not the description's responsibility. No critical gaps remain.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no compensation is required.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'list computers paired to the signed-in ReMCP account and see which ones are online.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (paired computers) and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the first step to resolve ambiguity about the target computer.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when the target computer is not already unambiguous.' It also instructs to 'Call it first,' establishing a clear precondition and order of operations. While it doesn't name alternatives, the condition is sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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