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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a cost model, but says nothing about whether the probe is read-only, what it returns, permissions required, side effects, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 very short but cryptic and under-specified; field names and pricing are packed into one line while essential invocation context is missing. Brevity here reflects omission rather than well-structured conciseness.

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 tool with four required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is almost entirely inadequate. It does not explain what 'forged-shape' means, what target_mode is, what the tool returns, or what an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 explain parameter meanings, but it only repeats parameter names in braces. It also mentions target_mode, which is absent from the schema, adding confusion rather than semantic clarity.

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 names a 'Forged-shape probe suite' and lists field names, but gives no clear action verb or explanation of what probing actually does. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as attestation_check or verdict_lookup.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent information is pricing ('$4.99 / first free per operator ever'), which does not help an agent choose between sibling tools.

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