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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds diagnostic context: connection status, last successful sync, login failure state, responsible actor, and whether Zobrx paused the channel. It does not contradict the annotations and usefully explains the kind of issue triage the tool performs.

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 that starts with the user symptom and then lists the returned diagnostic fields. It is dense but every clause contributes relevant information.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description provides enough context to select and understand the tool: symptoms, marketplace scope, and the diagnostic dimensions returned. The main remaining gap is explicit channel-filter behavior and sibling routing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the single optional channel parameter. It lists the same four marketplaces that appear in the enum, but does not explicitly say that channel filters to one store or what happens when it is omitted.

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 resource and scope: login/not-syncing issues for specific marketplaces, returning connection status and failure context. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic sync tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as get_sync_status.

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?

It gives clear triggering symptoms ('login failed' / 'not syncing') and names the supported marketplaces, which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. It does not state when not to use it or which sibling to choose for broader sync diagnostics.

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