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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the fixed status vocabulary an agent may receive (including 'wall' meaning agents blocked) and the path-normalization rule that IDs in paths are ignored. It omits what happens when no reports exist for a target.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: purpose and status vocabulary first, usage condition second, with the normalization caveat appended compactly. Fully front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the enumerated status values effectively stand in for return-value documentation. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior — empty results, report freshness, or whether conditions are keyed per action — which an agent would need to know but can likely discover from the response.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds one useful rule beyond the schema — 'IDs in paths are ignored' — which clarifies matching/normalization, but does not explain how the optional 'action' verb affects lookups.

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 ('check') and resource ('live conditions reported by other agents') and enumerates the exact status vocabulary: clear, slow, rate_limited, wall, changed, broken, plus working detours. This makes it unambiguously the read counterpart to report_road among the siblings.

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 clear triggering condition: run it 'before acting on a website or API.' That is strong pre-flight guidance, but it names no explicit alternative (e.g., report_road for submitting a condition, watch_road for ongoing monitoring) and gives no when-not guidance.

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