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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns structured setup/component state, surfaces the next action for a blocker, and explicitly does not execute a scene command. It stops short of describing what a 'compatibility' failure looks like or how blockers are ranked, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 verb and scope, then the return-value summary, then the trigger, then sibling routing. Three dense sentences with no filler; the sibling enumeration is compact and carries real routing value.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description supplies what the agent actually needs: what is checked, that the result is structured state plus a next action for blockers, and that it will not mutate or execute scene commands. 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate inputs. No parameter-level ambiguity is introduced by an empty object 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?

Specific verb ('Diagnose') plus specific resource ('readiness to work in the receiving Blender') with the components named: account access, Desktop Bridge, Blender add-on, compatibility. It also explicitly separates itself from get_connection, get_app_state, and check_connection, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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 states the trigger ('Use when setup or access is uncertain') and then names three alternatives with the exact condition each one covers: get_connection for account computers and collaboration, get_app_state for Desktop configuration, check_connection for focused Bridge/Blender connectivity. When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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