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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the side effect of storing what was seen, the prerequisite of reaching the health endpoint, and the consequence of a host stopping (becomes `failed` and links revert to platform origin immediately). These are specific behavioral traits beyond what the name implies, and they directly inform an agent about state changes and failure outcomes.

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 primary action ('Probe the host now'), which is good. However, it repeats the 'only way/only operation' claim twice, which is redundant and could be condensed into one sentence. Each sentence otherwise adds value, and the overall structure is clear, but the redundancy keeps it from a perfect score.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: purpose, prerequisites, side effects, and failure behavior. It implies the outcome by stating the domain reaches `active` if successful, and describes what happens on failure. It doesn't mention return values or auth requirements, but those are not critical for this simple operation.

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 input schema has one parameter, organization_id, with a description ('Active organization ID') that covers 100% of the schema. The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already provides sufficient meaning for this simple parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Probe the host now and store what was seen.' It clearly identifies this as a verification step for tracking domains and distinguishes it from siblings by stating it is the only way to reach `active`, and that DNS resolution alone is insufficient. This differentiates it from commsharbor_domain_verify and tracking domain create/remove operations.

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 gives clear conditions for use: it is the only operation that moves a tracking domain to `active`, and it only works after reaching the product's health endpoint on that host. It also warns that DNS resolving is not enough, implying this tool should be used after confirming the product is reachable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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