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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the probe is 'live' (not cached), 'anonymous' (no auth), has a side effect ('stored to the vault'), and costs $0.01/call. Missing are rate limits and what happens on failure, but this is above average disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 waste; cost, liveness, and anonymity are packed in efficiently. 'Stored to the vault' is slightly cryptic, costing a perfect score.

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 an empty-schema, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description should at least clarify how the endpoint is selected and what a probe returns. It conveys cost, anonymity, and the vault side effect but leaves the target-selection and result-shape questions unanswered.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter semantics, which is expected here, though it also never explains how the target endpoint is supplied without any input field.

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 verb+resource ('probe an endpoint') and is clearly distinct from siblings like add_watch, get_verdict, and list_watches. The added qualifiers 'live' and 'anonymous' sharpen the intent. It falls short of 5 because the mechanism for identifying which endpoint is never clarified, given the empty schema.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives despite four sibling tools. The only usage-relevant detail is the '$0.01/call' cost, which is a reason to prefer caching but is not framed as such.

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