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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context—origin network, hop limit, and one probe per hop—but does not disclose latency characteristics, timeout behavior, or output format, leaving it at a moderate level.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and source network, containing no redundant or filler content.

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 omits any explanation of the return value (no output schema exists) and fails to mention the 'family' parameter, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently in all cases.

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 compensate. It explains the 'target' parameter as a public host or IP address, but the 'family' parameter (IPv4/IPv6 selector) is not mentioned at all, leaving a significant gap for one of the two parameters.

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 states a specific verb (trace the route) and resource (from the DotMoose network in Canada to a public host or IP), with operational constraints (20 hops, one probe per hop). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like looking_glass_ping or looking_glass_path, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the tool's general use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as looking_glass_ping or looking_glass_path, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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