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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the call is FREE and read-only and adds a real safety constraint ('Never send raw headers, IPs or secrets'). It stops short of saying whether auth is required, what the response looks like, or how the guidance is produced.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the value proposition ('FREE: read-only') before the scope and the privacy caveat. No filler, though it is dense enough that the safety note could be separated for emphasis.

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 an 8-parameter diagnostic tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about input semantics and about what guidance is returned. The privacy warning is welcome but does not fill the parameter or behavior gaps.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: it never explains surface (the only required field), how reason should be selected, or what operation/http_status/envelope fields represent. The listed error categories loosely echo a few reason enum values, which is marginal help at best.

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+resource ('diagnose agent connection') and narrows the domain to MCP/A2A compatibility guidance (version negotiation, header errors, invalid params, A2A task methods). It is clearly separable from the scan/readiness siblings, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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 error scenarios listed (version negotiation, legacy/modern header mismatch, invalid params, unavailable A2A task methods) imply when the tool is relevant, so usage is inferable. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to or from the eight sibling tools.

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