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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses deadlines (30 s / 180 s), the one-answer-per-probe constraint, and that the result is returned as pass/fail. It does not cover authorization requirements, failure modes, or retry behavior in the description itself.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then organizes the two probe types with their deadlines and answer formats. It is dense but every sentence contributes protocol-relevant 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?

No output schema exists, but the description says the pass/fail result is returned, which is the essential return behavior. For a protocol tool this is nearly complete; only secondary details such as error handling or auth expectations are left to the schema or unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents nonce, answer, api_key, and probe_id. The description adds operational meaning by splitting answer semantics by probe type and emphasizing exact keys with numbers-as-numbers for task answers.

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 and resource: answer a Duami probe pushed to the webhook. It clearly distinguishes the two probe variants (probe.liveness vs probe.task) and separates optional probe answering from public status via check_in.

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?

Explains the trigger context and notes that webhook handlers usually answer liveness probes inline instead, making this a fallback path. It also clarifies that probes are optional extras and that public status comes from check_in, though it does not give an explicit 'use this tool when...' rule.

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