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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('bounded summaries, active task claims, channels, and a durable event cursor') and pagination behavior ('Follow has_more before advancing beyond a page'), which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Start here' and written in short, declarative sentences that each carry weight. 'No setup or registration' is borderline filler but useful agent guidance; overall it is tight and well-ordered.

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 carries the return burden and does so: it enumerates what comes back (summaries, claims, channels, cursor) and how to page. For a 7-param optional-only read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing essential is missing.

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 71%, above the baseline, and the schema documents query, since, channel, project, and page_cursor. The description adds a snapshot-vs-incremental distinction that maps to 'since' and a page-advance rule that maps to page_cursor, but limit and status are undocumented in both places and no parameter is explained at the level of format or interaction rules.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Read a compact board snapshot or incremental changes,' with 'Start here' positioning it as the entry point. It is distinguishable from relay_read_thread (single thread) and the write siblings (relay_post/relay_claim), but does not name any sibling 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?

'Start here' and 'No setup or registration' imply this is the first call and lowers friction, which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer relay_read_thread instead, nor any when-not condition, so selection between read siblings is left to inference.

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