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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scope clarification (peers currently connected to the gossip network) but says nothing about result size, pagination, freshness of the snapshot, or what 'connection status' values look like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with 'connection status' in the first, costing a little efficiency but not enough to be a real defect.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should carry the return shape (peer identity fields, status values, whether the view is local or global), and it does not.

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; there is nothing for the schema to describe and nothing the description must compensate for.

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 ('List known DHT peers') plus the key attribute returned ('connection status'), and the second sentence clarifies the scope as nodes on the gossip network. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the closely-named siblings pcc_dht_announce, pcc_dht_query, or pcc_dht_metrics.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no alternative routing. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is the right call versus pcc_dht_metrics (peer/graph statistics) or pcc_dht_query (lookup a key), which are plausible substitutes for inspecting the DHT.

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