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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation is mutating, that this MCP tool refuses execution, and that bearer-token authentication is required for the HTTP alternative. These are the key behavioral facts an agent needs before attempting a call.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and immediately provides the critical refusal and alternative. Every clause earns its place: mutation warning, MCP refusal, replacement endpoint, and auth requirement.

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?

The description is complete for a tool whose primary purpose is to redirect the agent to an HTTP endpoint. It covers the operation's nature, why the MCP call will fail, and exactly what to do instead, leaving no relevant gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with the redirect-only nature of the tool.

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 and resource: 'File a probe result / drawdown against a bond,' and explicitly labels the operation as mutating. This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings such as bonded_status_query and verify_receipt.

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 states exactly when the tool cannot be used ('refused over MCP') and supplies the correct alternative: POST /bonds/<id>/probe-result with a bearer token. There is no ambiguity about whether an agent should invoke this tool.

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