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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reports connection details, validates Figma link shape, matches symptoms to fixes, and consumes no daily call.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first two words, and the remaining clauses add actionable detail. The symptom list is somewhat long but earns its place by helping the agent recognize whether the user's issue matches this tool.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it inspects, what it reports, and the supported problem categories. It does not describe the exact response format, but it is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining what the Figma link check expects ('frame link with node-id, not a prototype or Community page') and by giving concrete symptom categories, going beyond the schema's brief field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Diagnose setup problems') and then enumerates three concrete diagnostic behaviors. No sibling tool performs setup diagnosis, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from accessibility, linting, and context tools.

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 clear usage context by listing the symptom categories it handles and noting that it does not use a daily call, which encourages use for setup issues. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for routing.

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