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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation returns questions, assumptions, and evidence metadata, but it does not disclose failure behavior, prerequisite slug validity, or any other operational trait 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('questions', 'assumptions', 'evidence metadata', 'one audited') adds discriminative meaning.

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 low-complexity read tool with one required parameter, a fully descriptive schema, safety annotations, and an output schema available, the description is complete. It accurately states what is returned and the singular nature of the operation; no critical information for invoking 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 input schema documents the single slug parameter with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds no additional detail about the slug format or how it relates to the returned diagnostic beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource: questions, assumptions, and evidence metadata for one audited revenue leak diagnostic. It clearly separates this read operation from the run/list siblings by emphasizing a single audited diagnostic.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as list_revenue_leak_diagnostics for enumerating diagnostics or run_revenue_leak_diagnostic for creating one, leaving the agent to infer selection context from the sibling list.

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