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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no mutation vs read semantics, no side effects, no permission or precondition requirements, no notion of what a 'probe' does to a compartment.

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?

It is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy; the single fragment is essentially the name plus a parameter list and earns no informational value.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two fully undocumented required parameters, an agent has nothing to act on: neither the effect of the call nor the shape of the inputs is recoverable from the definition.

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% and the description only echoes the parameter names in braces, adding no meaning: the format of 'probes' (array of what?), the identity/scope of 'compartment', and their relationship are all undefined.

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 phrase 'Re-admission probes' merely restates the tool name 'readmit' with the parameter names appended; it does not state what re-admission means, what is probed, or what happens as a result. An agent cannot distinguish this from siblings like record_outcome or status_query based on the description.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g., record_outcome, status_query, add_job) it replaces. The description offers zero routing guidance.

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