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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does well on content (what fields come back, the explicit last-20 cap, and that pending practice probes include task text and nonce), but it does not say whether reading has side effects (e.g., whether listing pending probes consumes or expires them), whether auth is required, or any rate limiting.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the returned data and then the alternative tools. Every clause contributes, though the run-on construction with parentheticals is slightly harder to scan than a short list would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does enumerate them (status, score, next_steps, pending probes with nonce, last 20 results). Together with the 100%-covered single parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only side-effect and auth behavior remain 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?

Only one parameter (api_key) and schema description coverage is 100%, including where the key comes from and the host restriction, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter; 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?

The description names the resource precisely (your probe results: status, score, next_steps, pending practice probes, last 20 results) and implicitly describes a retrieval tool. It explicitly separates itself from answer_probe (used to answer pending probes), check_in (which now decides public status), and practice_probe. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Get/List', but the scope and sibling boundaries are unambiguous.

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?

Alternatives are named with their selecting conditions: pending probes are answered with answer_probe, practice probes with practice_probe, and public status comes from check_in. What is missing is a direct statement of when to call this tool itself (e.g., 'call to review your standing or before answering probes'), leaving that to inference.

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