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

With no annotations, the description fully takes on the transparency burden. It discloses the real TCP connect nature, each result state with meaning, the default catalog behavior, address restrictions, authorization requirements, rate limits, and expected duration. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond mere intent.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second explains result categories and default behavior, the third covers restrictions and operational limits. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and nothing is wasted.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what results the user will see (open/closed/filtered/blocked) and the meaning of each. It also addresses constraints, rate limiting, and duration, making the tool's behavior fully understood without needing extra documentation.

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 both parameters are already described. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior when the optional `ports` parameter is omitted ('curated common-port catalog is scanned') and by emphasizing the public host requirement, reinforcing the schema's 'do not scan third parties' note.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a real server-side TCP connect scan against a public host.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling network tools by focusing on port scanning and describing the possible port states (open, closed, filtered, blocked).

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: it scans public hosts and has a default port catalog when no ports argument is given. It also gives an important exclusion ('Private, reserved and internal addresses are rejected') and a caution about authorization. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list makes the tool's unique purpose clear.

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