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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the rate limit ('1/min/target') and the side effect of recording drift, but it omits permissions, whether the action is reversible, and what happens on failure or if the target is not enrolled.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The most important action and the rate-limit constraint are both stated efficiently.

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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the core operation and rate limit. However, it lacks information about return behavior, error conditions, and required permissions, which would matter for 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 should compensate. It only indirectly references the parameter as 'one enrolled target' and does not describe target_id's format, source, or any constraints, leaving the single parameter under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Re-probe') and resource ('one enrolled target') and states the outcome ('record two-sided drift'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like access_probe or drift_targets.

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?

The phrase 'manual runs metered: 1/min/target' implies this tool is for on-demand checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the right tool for a one-off drift probe.

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