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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is paid, the exact price formula ($0.01 + $0.002 × N USDC on Base), and that unpaid calls fail with HTTP 402. It does not say whether the probe is synchronous, how long it takes, or whether cached prior results are replaced.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the scope, arguments, failure mode, and price are all delivered in minimal space.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers cost, payment failure, and batch limits, which is the information an agent most needs before invoking. The main remaining gap is return-shape/timing, which nothing else in the definition supplies.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the domains array, its normalization rules, and the mode literal 'full'. The description merely restates the two argument names and the literal value, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured data.

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 and resource ('live re-probe of up to 10 hosts'), and the batch scope plus the name contrast with the singular sibling refresh_host. It stops short of explicitly naming refresh_host/refresh_host_protocol as the single-host alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'up to 10 hosts' batch framing and the 'Paid' qualifier tell an agent this is the multi-host paid path, but no sentence says when to prefer it over refresh_host or refresh_host_protocol, nor what the prerequisites are.

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