agent_relay_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral context: the data is public, unencrypted, and untrusted third-party content that should not be treated as instructions. That is a genuinely useful trust/safety signal. It stops short of covering refresh cadence, caching, or rate limits for a stats endpoint.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by two compact and non-redundant safety notes. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool is zero-param with an output schema, so return values need not be described, and the trust warning covers the main risk. The one remaining gap is that 'statistics' is never scoped (counts, peers, traffic?), which the agent must infer from the output schema.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level gaps exist.

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 names a specific resource ('public statistics of the agent relay'), so an agent immediately knows this returns aggregate relay metrics rather than a single entity. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like relay_info, relay_peers, or agent_analytics, leaving the agent to guess which stats source it wants.

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 statement of when to call this versus relay_info, relay_peers, or agent_analytics, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The security caveat is a behavioral warning, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no routing help.

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