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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed (non-open-world) scope, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's one contribution is that the returned status is built from 'privacy-filtered project metadata', which is genuine behavioral context about what the caller will see, but it says nothing about what fields that status contains or what happens if the handoff is unknown.

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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool, but there is no padding or repetition.

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 tool with four identifiers (two required), mislabeled schema descriptions, no output schema and no sibling differentiation, one sentence is not enough. The description should at minimum explain which identifier drives the lookup and how it relates to the relay_poll/relay_sync_completion family.

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 nominally 100%, but all four parameters carry the identical boilerplate 'Owned project ID returned by list_linked_projects or map_project', which is plainly wrong for handoffId, sessionId and executionId. The description adds no meaning at all, so the agent cannot tell from either source what handoffId vs sessionId vs executionId actually select, which is exactly what this tool needs.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read hosted relay status') with a qualifier about privacy-filtered metadata, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the very close sibling relay_poll, nor from get_project_status or get_agent_execution_status.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no conditions, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer relay_status over relay_poll, relay_sync_completion, or get_project_status. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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