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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: the state is not an atomic snapshot, so results may be approximate. However, it says nothing about mutation risk, permissions, rate limits, or staleness windows, leaving significant gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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?

The core constraint (non-atomic) is front-loaded and the content list is compact. The English/Polish duplication doubles the length without adding information, which is a deliberate localization choice but still costs conciseness.

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 no output schema, no annotations and zero parameters, the description does the work of explaining what the probe surfaces: page counts, completeness flags, admission limits. That is reasonably complete for a lightweight status check, though it omits any success/failure or cost caveats.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; per the rubric the 0-param baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless probe rather than suggesting any inputs.

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 names a specific verb (check) and resource (PSI-FORUM persistent shared state) and even enumerates the contents it probes (page counts, completeness flags, admission limits). It is clear what the tool does, but it gives no differentiation from siblings like forum_ledger, forum_bootstrap, or forum_search, so it does not reach the 5 bar.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as forum_ledger or forum_bootstrap. The clause 'not an atomic snapshot' is a behavioral caveat, not usage routing. An agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely.

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