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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: which relay set is hit on every query versus only on explicit opt-in, which is the key consequence of a relay's classification. Return shape is not described.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the semantics. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the domain meaning an agent needs to act on the result. It stops short of saying what the returned entries look like or how they relate to the relay_list_get sibling.

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 nonetheless gives meaning to the values the tool yields (defaultRelays vs extraRelays) and how those values feed a parameter on other tools, which is useful framing.

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 the configured AMB relays") and immediately explains what the two relay categories are. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-named sibling relay_list_get, so an agent cannot rule out overlap from the description alone.

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?

Explains the operative distinction: defaultRelays are always searched, extraRelays (e.g. OERSI) only when explicitly passed to a search/get tool. That implicitly tells the agent when this tool matters (before choosing relays for a query). No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling alternative is given.

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