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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds context about the blocking behavior (up to 60 seconds) and notes the callback wrapper, which is important for an agent to avoid timeout. It also mentions the permission requirement (write_devices), adding valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing essential usage details. Every sentence adds value: purpose, endpoint, permissions, blocking behavior, config specifics, and return format. No redundancy.

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 tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers all necessary details: config structure for both versions, return type, and blocking behavior. The schema already covers parameter descriptions, so the description completes the picture.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add much beyond what the schema provides, except for clarifying the return shape and emphasizing the need for valid configuration. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema covers everything.

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 states a specific action ('Probe a device for SNMP reachability'), identifies the underlying endpoint, and mentions the wrapper binary. It clearly differentiates from siblings like ping and traceroute by focusing on SNMP reachability.

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?

It explains when to use (to test SNMP reachability) and provides clear configuration guidance for v1/v2 vs v3. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling list includes similar network diagnostics (ping, snmp_walk), and the description is clear enough that an agent can infer when to choose this tool.

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