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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it discloses the data sources read (per-location deployments, recent events, last 30 minutes of error logs), the failure catalogue it matches against, and the shape of the response (likely cause + evidence + fix). The 'Read only' sentence duplicates readOnlyHint=true but does not contradict it. Missing only things like latency/cost of the scan.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences that state purpose first, then mechanics, then safety. The failure-category list is long but each item is informative; nothing is redundant except the trailing 'Read only' which annotations already cover.

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?

For a read-only diagnostic tool with a full schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing: it knows what is inspected, how long of a log window, what failure classes are detected, and what the response contains.

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 all four parameters are already documented, and the description adds no per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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 ('diagnose a workload') plus the exact problem domain (unhealthy, not starting, failing). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_workload_logs or query_metrics because it names the multi-source correlation it performs.

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?

'in one call' signals this replaces manually chaining logs, events, and deployment reads, which is implicit routing guidance against the sibling list tools. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. healthy workloads, single known log lookup).

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