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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar for additional value is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it uses 'published questions' and returns 'the same directional result as the website', which conveys the methodology and output nature 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 earns its place: it names the action, the specific diagnostic, the input method, and the output nature, all in ~18 words.

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?

With a rich output schema, full parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description need only add the operational nuances. It mentions the deterministic website-matching behavior and use of published questions, which is mostly sufficient. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that users should first obtain the slug via get_revenue_leak_diagnostic, though the schema implies this dependency.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema: it implies that answers correspond to the diagnostic's published questions, but the schema's answer description already states these are keyed by question IDs from get_revenue_leak_diagnostic. No substantial extra semantic value is provided.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('audited revenue leak diagnostic'), and clarifies the behavior by mentioning 'published questions' and 'same directional result as the website'. This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools and other run_* diagnostics by naming the exact diagnostic and its execution method.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the description indicates this runs a revenue leak diagnostic and references the diagnostic's published questions, but it does not directly state when to prefer this over other run_* diagnostics or when not to use it. There is no exclusion or alternative comparison.

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