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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only "privacy-filtered project metadata," which hints at data scoping but says nothing about return shape, freshness, or side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and a dense relay_* sibling family, the description omits what a poll returns, when it should be called, and how the optional identifiers affect scope. It is not adequate for correct invocation without opening the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, all four parameter descriptions are identical boilerplate ("Owned project ID returned by list_linked_projects..."), which is misleading for handoffId, sessionId, and executionId, and the description does nothing to clarify the distinction.

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 verb ("Read") and a resource ("hosted relay poll"), but "poll" is left undefined and the description never distinguishes this from sibling read tools like relay_status. An agent can guess it reads relay state, but not what a "poll" specifically is versus a status check.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With seven relay_* siblings (relay_status, relay_accept, relay_dismiss, relay_mark_sent, relay_release, etc.), the description gives no signal for choosing relay_poll over relay_status or when polling is appropriate.

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