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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: no credentials required, no server access needed, and pasted input is not stored. That privacy/auth disclosure is genuinely useful for a tool that accepts raw log text, though it doesn't cover output format or matching thresholds.

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?

Opens with the triggering condition, then front-loads the return value, constraints, and the routing hint to the sibling. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return shape, and the exclusion against payram_doctor plus the zero-argument listing behavior removes the remaining ambiguity. Complete for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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 four parameters including the area enum. The description only loosely gestures at 'symptom' and 'output' usage and says nothing about id or area narrowing beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (troubleshoot a PayRam problem) and enumerates exactly what it returns: matched known problems, their meaning, how to confirm, the fix, and the next tool. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling payram_doctor, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives concrete usage ('describe the problem in plain words and/or paste the error or log text'), an edge case ('call with nothing to list known problems'), and an explicit exclusion with the alternative ('for a live check of a running server use payram_doctor'). Nothing is left to inference.

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