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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it delivers by enumerating the status values and splitting them into in-progress vs terminal categories, which shapes how an agent should loop on polling. It omits auth requirements and any rate-limit/polling-interval guidance, so it falls just short of full disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, enumerated return states, then usage trigger, front-loaded in that order. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover both behavior and returns, and it does describe the status vocabulary. Minor gaps remain (auth, polling cadence), but for a single-parameter read tool it is close to complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents requestId as the value returned from a quote or execute call. The description restates that the intent is keyed by requestId but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (current status of a Relay intent) plus the keying parameter (requestId). It is clearly distinguishable from relay_execute and relay_get_quote, which perform mutations/quoting rather than status retrieval.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for it: 'manual polling when relay_execute was not awaited to completion.' That is clear situational context, though it stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions.

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