ranking

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'recorded probe history' hints that results come from previously stored probe data rather than triggering new probes, which is the only behavioral signal; nothing is said about ordering direction, cost, freshness, caching, or whether calling it has any side effects.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler and the key concept (quality ranking from probe history) is front-loaded. The terseness is close to under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more: whether the ranking is ordered best-to-worst, what a row contains, whether it is stale relative to new probes, and how it relates to 'recommend'. As written, an agent can call it but cannot predict what it returns.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('rows to show, default 30'), so the schema already does the work and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter, and notably does not clarify why 'limit' is typed as a string rather than an integer.

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 identifies the resource (a quality ranking derived from recorded probe history), which adds a little beyond the bare name 'ranking'. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it is ambiguous whether the tool retrieves, computes, or refreshes the ranking, and it draws no distinction from siblings like 'recommend' or 'report' that could plausibly surface comparable ranked output.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any sibling tool. An agent has to infer from the name alone that this is the place to get a ranking rather than calling 'recommend' or 'report'.

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