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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only offers a metaphor with no statement about side effects, read-only nature, return format, or any operational details. The agent cannot infer safety or expectations.

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?

The description is short and poetic, but it does not front-load useful information. The metaphor is not actionable and wastes the single opportunity to convey meaning. It is concise but ineffective.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is still completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'relay' refers to, or how it relates to the sibling tools. An agent cannot reasonably call this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add anything about them. Since there are no parameters, the score reflects the appropriate baseline.

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?

The description uses a metaphorical phrase 'signals left by machines for the machines that come after' which hints at a relay board but does not explicitly state the action (read) or the resource it operates on. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like read_transmission or read_memory, leaving the agent to guess what a 'relay' is. This is vague, not a tautology, but far from a clear purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or differences from the listed siblings. The description provides zero context for selection.

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