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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context: the exact state values returned, the last-seen device, and that team projects surface the team's relay rather than the user's. It stops short of describing output shape, but with no output schema and no mutation risk this is well covered.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load what the tool reports, then usage conditions, then the team-project caveat. No filler, though the state enumeration could be read as slightly list-heavy.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return semantics (the possible states, the last-seen device, and the team-project variation) and the usage boundary. An agent has what it needs to decide whether and how to call it.

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 is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the project filter. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond implying per-project scoping, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (the user's Chief relay / local runner) and enumerates the concrete states it reports (never_paired, offline, connected, last-seen device). It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, but the relay-status domain is self-evidently distinct from the project/milestone/task siblings.

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?

Gives explicit when-needed guidance: only relevant for auto mode, ask_chief and dispatch, while reading and filing tasks work without it. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead, but the exclusion condition is stated clearly.

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