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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description does not add behavioral specifics beyond the inputs, such as output format or side effects. Since the output schema exists, the description's minimal behavioral disclosure is acceptable, but it adds little beyond 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, clear sentence that begins with the action verb 'Diagnose' and specifies the subject and key inputs. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description, combined with the schema and output schema, provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, inputs, and expected behavior. It doesn't explicitly state the output, but the output schema covers that. Given the annotations and schema richness, the description is adequately complete.

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 schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters, including enum values for primaryConstraint. The description's mention of 'lead volume, customer value, and the primary systems constraint' merely paraphrases the parameters without adding new semantics, such as units, examples, or relationships. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaningful incremental value.

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's function: diagnosing if a service business operates like an AI Business OS based on lead volume, customer value, and primary constraint. It distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostic tools like run_front_door_benchmark or run_revenue_leak_diagnostic by focusing specifically on the AI Business OS framework.

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 implies the tool is used when assessing a business's alignment with an AI Business OS, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other diagnostic tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion conditions, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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