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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: a host allowlist limited to unknowncheats.me, a refusal of account and posting endpoints, and an anti-redirect guarantee. These are precisely the failure modes an agent needs to anticipate before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the fallback trigger, then constraints, then args – a natural decision order with no filler sentences. Every clause earns its place, including the redirect note.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be described, and the description covers the remaining unknowns: when to use it, what it refuses, and what both inputs mean. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 carries the full burden, and it does define both parameters: path as a /forum/ path or full unknowncheats.me URL, and chars as an output budget. It stops short of stating the error behavior for a malformed path or the unit/token basis of the chars budget, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 (fetch) and resource (any UnknownCheats page, returned as cleaned text), and immediately frames itself as a fallback rather than a primary path. That framing is enough to separate it from the structured siblings uc_thread, uc_forum, and uc_search.

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 an explicit trigger ('when a structured tool returns nothing parsable') and an explicit scope extension ('a page the other tools do not model – member profiles, wiki pages'), which tells the agent both when to prefer siblings and when this tool is the only option.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest-activity first and include each thread's last-post date, letting an agent judge board liveness.

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 dual-mode behavior is front-loaded in the first paragraph and the args are kept in a compact list. A few phrases are slightly verbose but nothing displaces the important information.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs to supply mode selection, ordering semantics, and param meaning — all of which it does. It stops short of stating pagination boundaries or total thread counts, but that gap is minor.

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 carries the burden, and it does define all three params and their roles. Slug comes with concrete examples ("rust", "valorant", "anti-cheat-bypass"); page and limit are explained only tersely and their default values are left to the schema.

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 and resource (browse UnknownCheats by subforum) and clearly splits the two operating modes: no slug = list all subforums, with slug = list that board's threads. It never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling tool (e.g. uc_search or uc_thread), so an agent must infer the division of labor.

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?

It gives actionable usage context — call the no-slug form once to discover which board a topic lives in, then pass a slug to inspect threads. That covers when to use each mode, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternative sibling tools for overlapping needs.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds valuable non-structured behavior: ~17s call latency, the engine's 500-result saturation cap, OR-based loose term matching, and how mode/title_only interact with that cap. It stops short of describing pagination behavior beyond '20 per page', keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then per-argument guidance; nearly every sentence carries concrete evidence rather than filler. It is long, but the length is justified by 8 undocumented parameters — a small trim of the duplicated 'saturation' point would tighten it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and with 8 params at 0% schema coverage the description supplies exactly what's missing: enum-like value lists, defaults, and the title_only/threads combination that produces the sharpest results.

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 carries the full burden — and it does: every parameter gets meaning, valid values (since windows, sort options, mode values) and, unusually, measured result counts (105 vs 23 vs 2 hits) that tell the agent what scoping actually does.

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+resource ('Search UnknownCheats') and immediately defines the domain corpus it searches, naming concrete subject matter (anti-cheat systems, offsets, RE, DMA). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling uc_forum/uc_thread/uc_fetch, which are referenced as separate retrieval steps.

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?

Explicitly says to reach for it FIRST before memory or web, enumerates the topic triggers that select it, and gives an explicit skip condition ('anything outside that domain'). It also names the alternative for slug discovery (uc_forum()). This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable operational context beyond that: the cf_clearance cookie is short-lived, refreshing cookies.json and reloading fixes Cloudflare errors, and no restart is needed. It does not explain what clear_cache changes or what request budget means.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by focused operational guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and rich annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, the description omits any explanation of clear_cache and only names session-health/request-budget concepts without elaborating, leaving a meaningful gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 carry both parameters. It explains reload=True well by giving the condition and purpose, but it never mentions clear_cache, leaving one of two parameters undocumented beyond its name.

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 first line names the resource (session) and the state it reports (health, request budget, cache), so an agent can identify it as a session diagnostics tool. It is not verb-led, but it is specific enough and clearly distinct from the uc_search/thread/forum/fetch siblings.

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 second paragraph gives a concrete when-to-use scenario for reload=True: after re-exporting cookies.json, when Cloudflare errors occur, and notes no restart is needed. It does not discuss when to call the tool itself, when to use clear_cache, or alternatives, but the operational context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: posts are truncated at a per-post character budget, and pagination semantics on long-lived threads. It does not discuss rate limits or return shape, but the output schema covers the latter.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then a clean per-argument list where every entry earns its place. The prose is slightly verbose but no sentence is wasted or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and all three parameters are fully documented along with page-vs-last tradeoffs. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 carry the full burden, and it does: path is defined with a concrete example format and its source tools, page accepts an integer or "last"/-1 with a meaningful default, and chars is explained as a truncation budget with guidance on when to raise it.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — 'Read the posts of one UnknownCheats thread' — and adds the date-stamping scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like uc_search or uc_fetch beyond noting where the path format comes from, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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?

It gives actionable context: use page "last" or -1 for current content because page 1 on an old thread is likely stale, and raise chars when a post holds needed code. It stops short of naming alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is strong context without explicit routing.

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