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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement and the data components, but does not describe the response format, error behavior, or any side effects. For a read-style tool, this is a notable gap.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Relay kit for a registered AI'), lists the contents, and closes with the auth requirement. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to cover prerequisites and return value shape. It covers auth and lists the three components, but does not specify the response format or any failure modes. Given the sibling set, it could be clearer about when this tool is the right choice, but the core info is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific info, which is unnecessary. It does add context about what the tool returns, which indirectly helps.

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 returns a relay kit with three specific components (invite_code, invitation message, relay standing) for a registered AI. The purpose is distinct from siblings like get_bootstrap or get_constitution, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 mentions 'for a registered AI' and requires Authorization, implying it's used after registration, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling tools like get_relay_network or get_signal. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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