proofpage_recheck_source

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

With no annotations, this description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. The only behavioral fact is the vague "shared cooldowns", which doesn't disclose the cooldown window, who shares it, whether the call fails or queues when throttled, whether it mutates stored source data, or whether it incurs cost. For an unannotated mutation-shaped tool, that's a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action leads. But the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the words saved on use cases and cooldown behavior are the words an agent actually needs.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation, and 34 sibling tools make the missing context costly. An agent cannot tell what happens on success, what a cooldown rejection looks like, or how to recover from one. The definition is not enough to call this tool correctly on the first try.

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 explain that source_id names an existing source record — it only implies this via "an existing source". No format, no example, no note about where an agent obtains a valid source_id (e.g., from proofpage_list_sources). With one required parameter entirely undocumented everywhere, the definition is insufficient.

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?

"Recheck an existing source" gives a recognizable verb+resource, but it is not distinguished from any sibling — several of them (proofpage_ensure_fresh, proofpage_collect, proofpage_schedule_source) plausibly touch source state. It's also left ambiguous what a "recheck" actually does (re-fetch, re-validate, re-score), and "within shared cooldowns" is unexplained jargon that doesn't clarify the action.

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 use this versus a very crowded sibling set, and no exclusions. "Recheck" weakly implies re-running a prior operation on a known source, but an agent has to guess whether ensure_fresh or collect is the better choice. "Shared cooldowns" hints at a constraint but never says what triggers it or what to do instead.

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