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 safety profile is covered. The description adds 'privacy-filtered project metadata,' which hints at data-scoping behavior, but otherwise discloses little about what the status response contains or how the filtering works.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 and no return-value description, the agent does not know what shape the relay status takes. The description also fails to explain the required handoffId or the optional session/execution identifiers, making it thin for a 4-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining projectId, handoffId, sessionId, and executionId. It only alludes to 'project metadata' and never clarifies how handoffId or the optional sessionId/executionId affect the status lookup, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names and patterns.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('hosted relay status'), and adds a scoping qualifier about privacy-filtered project metadata. It is clear on its own, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like relay_poll or relay_accept, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as relay_poll, relay_accept, or relay_release. The description gives no context about the calling scenario or preconditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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