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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it reinforces aggregate-only nature, guarantees absence of sensitive data, and clarifies auth requirements ('No auth required'). This is extra value without contradicting annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential constraints (aggregate-only, no sensitive data, no auth). Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an output schema present and no parameters, the description covers purpose, behavioral expectations, privacy, and authentication in a compact form. It is complete for a simple read-only stats tool, and the 60-minute freshness detail adds useful operational context.

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 schema fully covers any input requirements. The description implicitly confirms no inputs are needed, and the absence of additional parameter details is acceptable because there are none to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Conductor Relay marketplace and 60-minute live-network traffic stats'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_status or get_balance. It adds scope qualifiers ('aggregate-only', 'no agent identifiers or wallet data') that further differentiate it.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use: when aggregate marketplace and live traffic stats are needed, with no auth. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the specificity of statistics collection makes the use case evident.

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