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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond these: 'No auth required' and the specific data points returned (counts and median seconds), which are not in the 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 short sentences with no filler, front-loads the action, and includes only essential details (purpose and auth requirement). Every word earns its place.

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 health-check tool, the description covers purpose, auth, and return metrics. An output schema exists (per signal), annotations cover safety, and there are no nested objects or complex inputs. The description is fully sufficient for an agent.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns, which is more valuable.

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 the verb 'Get' and explicitly names the resource 'Conductor Relay exchange health' along with the specific metrics (24h job created/completed counts and median completion seconds). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_network_stats, which covers network-level statistics.

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 by labeling the tool as 'public' and stating 'No auth required', which indicates when it should be used. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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