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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that the state is private and accessed via a one-time key, but omits whether the read consumes/invalidates the key, authorization failure behavior, or what the returned state looks like. For a zero-annotation tool this is partial coverage.

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 tightly-packed sentence with the resource and the key requirement front-loaded; nothing extraneous.

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 2-param tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should define both parameters and any one-time-key consumption semantics. It does neither, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it without inspecting the raw 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 0%, so the description must compensate but only references one of the two required parameters implicitly ('relationship owner key'). It never explains relationship_id vs relationship_key or the format constraints (UUID, 64-hex), leaving the schema's patterns as the only guidance.

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 private relationship state') and immediately scopes it with 'using the one-time relationship owner key,' which is exactly what distinguishes it from sibling tools like aether_identity or aether_introduce. The name and description align tightly.

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 phrase 'one-time relationship owner key' implies the precondition that you must hold this credential, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or preferred alternative among siblings. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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