Connected peers

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantive context: no password required, data is untrusted because names/tags are self-declared, the meaning of 'senior', 'signed', and 'relay' reach, and what is excluded. That is well beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and use case, then a dense but useful field-by-field return description. It is long, but nearly every clause (untrusted data, exclusion of self, no password) earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates every returned field with its meaning, including trust caveats and the relay/signed distinctions. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this read-only tool is missing.

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 single 'limit' parameter already documents its default (50) and 1-500 range. The description never mentions the limit, so it adds nothing on parameters; baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the semantics.

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 (List) and resource (the other peers known in the YaCy P2P network), and immediately distinguishes itself from get_index_status by noting it excludes this peer itself. An agent can separate it from search_web, list_crawls, etc. without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete motivating scenario ('see why a global search finds little (no or few senior peers)') and names the alternative to use for the self peer (get_index_status). The condition that selects it and the alternative are both explicit.

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