aamio_presence_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: the server learns only hash prefixes, and the wait mode answers as soon as someone comes online. These details go well beyond what the annotations reveal.

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 short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating the lookup result, explaining the privacy behavior, and describing the wait mode. There is no filler, and the primary function is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, two optional parameters, and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete: it tells what is returned, notes the privacy property, and covers the wait feature. It lacks explicit usage guidance and wait units, but these are minor gaps for such a small tool.

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 schema documents `names` but leaves `wait` undocumented; the description compensates for `wait` by explaining that it makes the call answer as soon as someone comes online. However, it does not specify units, max value, or how `wait` behaves when `names` is omitted, so with 50% schema coverage the description only partially fills the gap.

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 opening sentence gives a concrete result: which partners are online and at which write address. This clearly identifies the tool's verb and resource, making its purpose self-evident. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aamio_partners or aamio_read, but the function is unmistakable.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The wait clause implies a usage mode, but an agent is never told why it should choose presence lookup over other partner-related tools.

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