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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new state information the annotations cannot: report_id appears only once the diagnostic has completed, which tells the agent how to detect an incomplete run.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return shape and followed by the usage condition. Every clause carries information: the field list, the completion-dependent report_id, and the hand-off to get_report.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing the return payload, including the conditional report_id. The only gap for a simple one-parameter lookup is behavior when the id is unknown (error vs. empty result) or whether it can be polled repeatedly while a run is in progress.

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 0% for the single required `id` parameter, so the schema names it but says nothing about what it identifies. The description compensates only partially by framing the call as "one Diagnostic by id," implying it is the diagnostic identifier, but it never states the UUID format or where such an id comes from (e.g., list_diagnostics or run_diagnostic).

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?

"Returns one Diagnostic by id" is a specific verb plus resource, and the description then enumerates the payload (status, business name, website, client_id, MIDAS score, created date, report_id) so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It also explicitly separates this from get_report, which returns the findings.

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?

"Fits checking whether a particular run has finished; the findings themselves come from get_report" gives a clear use case and routes the agent to the right sibling for report content. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely related get_run_status or explain when to use list_diagnostics instead of fetching one by id.

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