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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 30-minute error-log window, the fixed catalog of known failures it matches against, and the shape of the result (each likely cause with evidence and the fix). It does not mention rate limits, cost, or latency, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 purpose, then a compact clause describing sources and the failure catalog. The long parenthetical list of failure categories is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what kinds of answers to expect. The trailing 'Read only.' is redundant with readOnlyHint, a minor waste.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return fields, and it still sketches the result shape (cause + evidence + fix). All parameters are schema-documented, annotations carry the safety profile, and the failure catalog tells the agent exactly what diagnostic territory is covered. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and all four parameters (gvc, org, name, location) are documented in the schema, including the fallback instruction to call list_resources when no GVC is named. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so the baseline 3 for a schema-complete tool is correct.

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 (diagnose) and resource (workload) with the exact problem class it addresses: unhealthy, not starting, or failing. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling readers like get_workload_logs and get_workload_events because it names itself as the aggregating 'one call' that reads deployments, events, and logs together.

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 phrase 'in one call' plus the enumeration of the three data sources it reads implies this is the preferred entry point over calling get_workload_logs, get_workload_events, and list_deployments separately. However, it never explicitly says 'use this instead of X' or states prerequisites such as needing the workload to already be deployed.

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