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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, local, repeatable read operation. The description adds the important constraint that it accepts diagnostic text and never model bytes, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe what the recovery action looks like or how errors are processed.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and include an important constraint. No waste, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has a detailed input schema and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, for an error-handling tool with no usage guidelines and no clarification of how the recovery action is generated or used, the description leaves gaps in contextual understanding.

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%, but the nested error object has eight required fields with const values and additionalProperties=false, which provides strong structural guidance. The description only clarifies that the input is diagnostic text, not model bytes, which adds marginal semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the rich schema structure compensates for the lack of text descriptions.

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: receives a bounded browser-produced DEEPBOM error and returns a recovery action to the conversation. Clear purpose, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like deepbom_publish_analysis or deepbom_capabilities beyond the word 'error'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deepbom_analyze_file or deepbom_publish_analysis. The description implies it's for error recovery but doesn't state the triggering condition or when it should not be used.

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