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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds useful semantics about defaultRelays versus extraRelays and how the latter affects other tool calls, but says nothing about the shape or ordering of the returned list. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a modest but meaningful addition.

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 followed by the semantics that make the output actionable. Nothing appears 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?

A zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema; the description names the two categories of relay the caller should expect to see. It does not describe the concrete fields returned (identifiers, labels, URLs), which leaves a small gap for reconstructing the relays parameter value.

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 still adds value by explaining the relays parameter of other tools, which is the reason an agent would call this one.

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 explains what a relay is in this system, which is genuinely informative. It does not differentiate from near-named siblings such as relay_list_get or relay_stats, so an agent cannot rule those out 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?

Provides real usage context by explaining that extraRelays are only searched when passed via the relays parameter of a search/get call, which tells the agent why this listing matters. It stops short of stating when this tool should be preferred over relay_list_get or relay_stats, and gives no explicit exclusion.

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