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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds context about what the tool explains (webhook intake, delivery, replay, anomaly review), which is beyond the annotations but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or length. This is acceptable for a simple descriptive tool.

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 a single sentence that is clear and front-loaded. It contains no extraneous information and is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description is mostly complete by stating what it explains. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., textual explanation, JSON). The simplicity of the tool and the annotations make this a minor gap.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the schema coverage is 100% by default.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Explain what Relin does and how agents should use it for webhook intake, delivery, replay, and anomaly review.' It uses a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('Relin'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are operational (create, list, etc.).

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 the tool: to get an explanation of Relin and guidance on its usage for specific tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no sibling tool offers the same function.

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