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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining why findings may be partial ('Parts show up once the app has run and been used') and that each category reports the step still missing, which tells the agent how to read sparse results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the data inventory and followed by the caveat about when data appears. The category list is long but each item earns its place as an enumeration of what will be returned.

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 no output schema, the description does the job of describing return contents by category and noting the 'step left when missing' detail. The phrase 'the step left when missing' is slightly opaque and it never says whether results are per-project aggregates or time-bounded, but for a zero-required-parameter read tool it is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'project' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the multi-project token condition. The description only alludes to scoping via 'from this project' and adds no format or selection guidance, so the baseline of 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?

The description states concretely what is reported: requests per service, browser sessions, source maps, identified users, and AI agent runs that have arrived in Relia from this project. That is a specific resource inventory rather than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as relia_setup or relia_status, so an agent must infer the split.

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 only implied: 'Parts show up once the app has run and been used' hints that this is an onboarding/verification check to run after the app has been exercised. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. relia_setup for configuration guidance vs this for observed data), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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