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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: cost per call (2 MESH), output characteristics (status, timing, selected headers, preview), and capability boundaries (no vault/inbox/custom headers). This meaningfully supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact sentences, with the core purpose and output front-loaded before constraints and cost. The opening repeats the tool name/title, which is mild redundancy, but overall the description is efficient and easy to scan.

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 reveals output shape and constraints, but omits the critical input contract for invoking the probe. There is no output schema, no parameter examples for this specific tool, and no indication of how to pass the URL/method, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from the description alone.

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 schema only documents an 'input' object with generic examples for other tools ('agent-brain', 'agent-memory'), not for this probe tool. The description says GET/POST and endpoint but never specifies how to structure the input object, leaving the essential parameter semantics undocumented.

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 action (probe), a resource (public HTTPS endpoint), allowed methods (GET/POST), and the bounded return fields. It does not explicitly compare itself to the sibling 'fetch' tool, but the scope is clear enough to distinguish the core behavior.

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?

Gives clear context: the tool is for probing public HTTPS endpoints with GET or POST, and explicitly excludes vault expansion, inbox access, and custom headers. It does not name an alternative tool or state a when-not-to-use condition relative to siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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