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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it documents plan-dependent output variation detailed down to individual fields (Free, Starter, Pro thresholds), the exclusion of internal signals, the report_not_ready failure mode, and score variance between runs. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contents, which is good, but the plan-gating information is delivered as one very long sentence with stacked clauses that is hard to parse. The information earns its place, yet the structure could be split into shorter, scannable statements.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value, and it does so field-by-field, plus adds the not-ready case and the caveat on run-to-run score movement. An agent has everything needed to call this and interpret the result correctly.

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 has one parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description bears the burden. It only says 'by id' and never clarifies that this is the Diagnostic id (e.g. from list_diagnostics) or what happens with a stale or foreign id, adding little meaning beyond the uuid-typed schema field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the report of a completed Diagnostic by id') and enumerates the returned contents (side_a_scores, side_b_scores, MIDAS score, executive summary, blind spots, etc.). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_diagnostic or get_run_status, which is a notable gap given the crowded sibling list.

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?

Gives clear conditions: only for a 'completed' Diagnostic, with report_not_ready returned otherwise, and names the usual next step (a Strategic Assessment via get_strategic_assessment) when business context or trade-offs are needed. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer get_diagnostic over this tool.

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