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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that this performs an active probe of a remote endpoint, the full set of result states including auth_required, the metrics returned (7-day uptime, median latency, tool count, last probe), and the hard limitation that stdio-only servers are not probeable. It does not say whether results are live or cached, nor whether probing has side effects or rate limits, which keeps it below a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence with the probe action first, then the result vocabulary, then the metric list, then the exclusion. Dense but every clause adds information; the only mild cost is the packed enumeration of return fields.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is checked, the possible states, the metrics returned, and the non-probeable case. The remaining gaps — live vs cached results, behavior on unknown names — are minor and do not block correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only indirectly implies that the single parameter identifies the entry ('of an entry'). Given one obvious required name parameter this is adequate, but it adds no format, matching, or error semantics (e.g. what happens for an unknown name).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Probe status of an entry') and enumerates the observable states (up, auth_required, down, dead), so an agent knows exactly what the call reports. It stops short of differentiating from the sibling get_entry, which likely also takes an entry name and returns entry data, leaving a small ambiguity about which to call.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for checking liveness/auth state, and the 'Stdio-only servers are not_probeable' clause usefully excludes a whole category of entries. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of get_entry when…' guidance and no mention of what to do for a non-probeable entry.

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