probe_upstream_endpoint

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose cost, live/uncached probing, and the focus on SSL and reachability. It does not mention potential external network side effects or error behavior, but the tool's intent is clearly non-mutating and the output schema likely covers return values.

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?

One compact sentence with no redundant filler; the cost is front-loaded and the core action and purpose are immediately clear.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and the core call semantics are clear, but the 0% schema coverage and absent usage/alternative guidance leave a moderate gap. The timeout parameter and sibling-tool differentiation are not addressed anywhere.

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 partially does for 'url' by calling it a custom endpoint, but it says nothing about timeout_seconds, its units, or its effect. The agent must infer timeout behavior from the schema's default.

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 uses a specific verb ('probe') and resource ('custom API endpoint or URL') and states the measurable outcome ('SSL latency and reachability'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools that fetch content, resolve DNS, or check address risk.

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 communicates the context ('on-demand live network probe'), but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as extract_web_markdown, dns_propagation_oracle, or whois_lookup. No exclusion or alternative routing is given.

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