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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool performs no probing, incurs no charge, operates over upstream catalogs plus a local shadow, and returns not_probed:true. It does not cover auth, failure modes, or rate limits, but the cost and side-effect profile is clearly conveyed.

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?

Two dense sentences deliver the operational definition, key behavior, return-field names, cost/probe characteristics, and routing to an alternative. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With a full input schema and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return structures or parameter syntax. It covers what the tool is, what it returns at a high level, that it is non-probing and non-charging, and when to use route instead. Minor ambiguity remains around the phrase 'Pay tools/call route,' but overall the definition is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the distinction between networks as a hard policy lock and prefer_network as a weak ranking preference. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific operation ('Request-time catalog preflight over upstream catalogs plus a local shadow') and names the resource and return highlights. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling route tool by explicitly noting it does not probe, making the tool's purpose and scope immediately clear.

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 states the tool's preflight role and explicitly routes live-probe needs to the route sibling: 'Pay tools/call route for a live probe.' It also discloses that this tool 'does not probe and does not charge,' giving an agent a clear basis for choosing it over the live-probe alternative.

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