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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real traits – a one-time grant and a $0.01 x402 cost tied to the HTTP /probe endpoint – which is genuine behavioral context. But it omits whether the probe mutates anything, what auth it requires (agent_token is unexplained), and what a result or failure looks like.

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 no padding, which is structurally good. The dense parenthetical, however, crams three loosely related concepts into one clause and reads more as an aside than usable information.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, one cryptic sentence is insufficient. Parameter meaning, usage context, and behavioral profile are all absent, leaving the agent without what it needs to invoke this correctly.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. "One target path" loosely gestures at path, but signed, fixture, base_url, and agent_token receive no meaning from either schema or description.

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 action ("pre-flight declared-vs-enforced probe") on a specific resource ("one target path"), so the general intent is recoverable. However, the jargon ("declared-vs-enforced", "x402 rail") is opaque and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings drift_run and drift_targets beyond the singular "one target path".

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?

No when-to-use guidance relative to drift_run or drift_targets, and no prerequisites or preconditions stated. The parenthetical mentions a one-time grant and a cost rail but does not translate into a use/don't-use rule.

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