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

With no annotations, the description does carry some of the burden: it discloses that the call triggers an outbound probe (not just a read), that the target is the primary endpoint of an already-listed agent, and that an owner JWT is required for authorization. It omits rate limits, timeout behavior, whether results are persisted, and what 'liveness result' actually contains, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and target front-loaded and the auth prerequisite second. Nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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?

For a 3-parameter, fully documented schema the description covers the essential action and auth need, and no output schema exists so return-value detail is not strictly required. However, a network-probing tool with no annotations should say more about failure modes and whether the probe mutates or persists any state, leaving a real gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum for chain and the access_token auth note. The description's only parameter-adjacent content restates the access_token requirement ('owner JWT') without adding format, scope, or failure semantics, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Re-probe') and resource ('the primary endpoint of a listed agent'), scoped to a2a or mcp endpoints. The 're-' prefix implies a fresh check rather than reading cached state, which distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like actora_endpoint_status or actora_endpoint_active, though those siblings are never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: 're-probe' plus the owner-JWT requirement suggests this is for forcing a fresh liveness check on a known agent. It never says when to prefer it over actora_endpoint_status, actora_endpoint_active, or actora_endpoint_list, so an agent must infer the choice.

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