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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait—that a mid-sweep host flip produces an INCONSISTENT result and that the profile is shim-derived—but it does not cover permissions, side effects, output shape, or how policy affects execution.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no obvious filler. Its brevity becomes under-specification, however, because key terms like 'shim-derived profile' and 'probe sweep' are compressed without explanation.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with three parameters at zero schema coverage, this description is far from complete. It offers a hint about inconsistency behavior but omits prerequisites, parameter roles, result interpretation, and sibling differentiation.

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 must compensate, but it adds no meaningful semantics for 'host' or 'policy' and merely repeats 'host version' without format, allowed values, or role. Three undocumented parameters remain opaque.

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, 'Run a probe sweep,' and ties it to a 'host version,' so the basic purpose is inferable. However, 'probe sweep' is unexplained jargon, and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as census_profile or census_verify_profile.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the other census_* tools, nor any stated prerequisites. The description only implies that a sweep applies to a host version, leaving the selection context entirely to inference.

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