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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It discloses authorization, cost, and trial constraints, but leaves out what the probe actually does, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the result 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, the term 'five-leg' is unexplained and makes the sentence less informative than its brevity suggests.

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 no parameter descriptions, the description should compensate more. It covers authorization and cost but omits endpoint format, probe behavior, and expected return information.

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 single parameter is undocumented. The phrase 'authorized target' weakly ties endpoint to the probe target, but it does not specify the expected format, such as URL, IP address, or hostname.

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 operation: a five-leg egress probe of an authorized target. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tools fleet_census or verdict_query.

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 implies that only authorized targets should be probed and mentions cost and a trial limit, but it does not explain when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No routing guidance against the sibling tools is provided.

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