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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds value by pre-announcing the return payload shape and, notably, warning that usage counts are withheld (internal_operator_metric: true) so the agent doesn't retry looking for them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, with the caveat second. The explanation about internal operator metrics is slightly wordy but earns its place by preventing futile follow-up calls.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing returned fields (protocol, encryption, endpoints, availability) and the internal_operator_metric flag is necessary and largely done. Only minor gaps remain, such as what 'availability' states beyond degraded/unavailable.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description correctly says nothing about inputs and instead spends its words on output semantics.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Voidly Agent Relay status') and enumerates what the status comprises: protocol, encryption, endpoints, availability. No sibling tool covers relay status, so ambiguity is low.

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?

Usage is only implied (you'd call it to check whether the relay is up). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or reference to an alternative tool, though the absence of relay-related siblings keeps mis-selection unlikely.

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