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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, free' while adding cost information (free) that annotations do not carry. It also discloses the output shape ('traffic light plus one sentence per point'), which is meaningful behavioral context for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Telegraphic but efficient: the scope question is front-loaded, the check list is dense, and the output format plus safety/cost note close it out. No filler sentences, though the fragment list is slightly terse.

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 no output schema, the description covers what is checked, what the response looks like, and that it is read-only and free. Only the routing relative to sibling identity/state tools is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single problem_report parameter is documented in rich detail within the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 enumerates the exact checks performed (backend reachability and latency, identity, credit, catalog age, last error, widget support), which is far more specific than the title 'Diagnose'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling identity tools like lab_whoami or lab_identitaet_pruefen, but the breadth of the check list makes the scope clear.

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 opening question 'Is everything wired?' implies a troubleshooting/setup-verification use case, but no when-to-use condition or alternative tool is named. With a crowded sibling set containing other identity and state tools, an agent gets only implied routing guidance.

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