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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: what the snapshot contains (message counts, peer connection stats, query/announce rates) and that the event list is capped at the last 50 — a bounded-return disclosure the annotations do not provide.

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 tight sentences with the operation and return contents front-loaded; the closing usage hint is short and additive. No filler.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema snapshot tool, the description covers what is returned and the event-list cap. It leaves out refresh/freshness semantics and the exact shape of the counter fields, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameter-free snapshot and does not fabricate arguments.

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 (DHT telemetry counters and recent events), and enumerates the returned metrics. It distinguishes the tool from pcc_dht_peers/pcc_dht_query/pcc_dht_announce by content, though it does not explicitly name those siblings or get_telemetry_stats, which also reports telemetry.

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?

"Use for monitoring network health" implies a context but gives no when-not guidance and names no alternative among the many telemetry tools (get_active_telemetry, get_telemetry_stats, get_telemetry_logs). Usage is inferable but not routed.

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