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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool returns instructions and guidance, implying a non-destructive, informational read operation. The examples illustrate the covered topics, though it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or limitations, which is acceptable for a simple help tool.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists examples. It is front-loaded, uses no redundant words, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple informational tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose and examples, though it could explicitly tie the guidance parameter to the listed topics. The existence of an output schema means return value details are unnecessary.

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 description lists example issues that map to the enum values in the schema but never explicitly connects them to the 'guidance' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain how to use the parameter; it only provides examples without stating that passing a topic selects the corresponding instructions.

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 clearly states the tool returns instructions and guidance for common troubleshooting issues. The verb 'returns' and direct object 'instructions and guidance' precisely define the function, and the examples (infinite redirects, CORS, etc.) clarify scope. It is distinct from the sibling integration/migration tools, which focus on setup rather than troubleshooting.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool by listing common scenarios such as infinite redirects and CORS issues. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly for integration/migration, making the troubleshooting use case well-differentiated.

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