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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool returns 'gone' and is effectively a stub. It also explains the reason (discontinued hosted grading) and where to find alternatives. Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive hints, but the description adds the context of the tool's non-functional status, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the critical fact (hosted grading discontinued, returns gone), followed by alternatives and the self-harness command. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 is complete for an agent: it explains the tool's status, where to get existing grades, and how to self-grade. Since an output schema exists, return format is not required. There are no missing pieces for correct usage.

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 covers the single parameter server_ref with a full description (100% coverage). The tool description does not add new semantic detail about the parameter itself; it only mentions it in the command example as a placeholder. The baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: it returns 'gone' because hosted grading is discontinued. This is a specific, unambiguous behavior that distinguishes it from the sibling tools check_server and list_servers, which provide existing grades. The verb 'returns' and the resource 'gone' are explicit.

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 explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool (hosted grading is discontinued) and provides direct alternatives: use check_server/list_servers for existing grades, or run the open harness command for self-grading. This is clear, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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