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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: nothing is stored or mailed.' It goes further by disclosing the two-phase questionnaire workflow and that the cost estimate is derived only from the user's own answers, which is meaningful behavior beyond the annotations.

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 description is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the identity of the diagnostic followed by the call procedure. Nearly every clause carries information, with only mild redundancy between the output description and the schema's own answers note.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: named condition, severity, cost estimate, and recommended next step with URL. Combined with the explicit two-call flow and the nested answers format, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: answers={} returns the questionnaire rather than a result, and the value is questionId→optionId with an array for multiple-choice questions. It also notes that locale controls the language of the result.

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 names a specific resource (the mikefluff.com ten-question business diagnostic) and states exactly what it returns: one of five named operational conditions, a severity, a cost estimate, and a next-step URL. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like book_call, get_answer, or list_books.

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 an explicit operating procedure: call with answers={} to fetch the questionnaire (question ids, option ids, conditionals), ask the user, then call again with {questionId: optionId}. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name any alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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