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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes further by stating it 'observes current in-process mesh service metrics without changing proof or telemetry state' and disclosing the shared rate limit. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 organized into clear labeled sections: PURPOSE, USAGE, PARAMETERS, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS, and ERRORS. Every section adds necessary information, and the purpose is front-loaded so an agent immediately knows the tool's role.

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 parameterless, read-only tool, this description covers purpose, usage boundaries, behavior, rate limits, return fields, and error conditions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and the output schema and annotations cover the rest.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly says 'No input properties are accepted' and documents the -32602 error for supplying any property, which adds value beyond the input schema's empty properties declaration.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves current peer topology, propagation, cross-validation, and quorum health for the mesh node.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by name in the usage section, so an agent can reliably tell what this tool owns.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('inspect peer connectivity and consensus readiness') and when not to use it, naming the exact alternatives: proof.verify and stratigraphy.get. This removes ambiguity about tool selection.

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