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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It adds that the result is a 'failing path plus highest-leverage next steps' rather than a score, which is mildly useful, but says nothing about probing behavior, timeouts, or limits of an open-world network call.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the value proposition (failing path + next steps) front-loaded. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 a 100%-documented schema, full annotations, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies enough to invoke the tool correctly for a three-parameter diagnostic. What is missing is explicit sibling disambiguation from audit_agent_commerce_readiness and prepare_agent_commerce_upgrade.

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%, including the conditional note that paymentResourceUrl is needed for a meaningful machine_payment_readiness diagnosis, so the schema carries all parameter meaning. The description only repeats the enum choices already documented in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail.

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 (agent-commerce path/blocked goal) and enumerates the four goal types the tool operates on. The phrase 'instead of a generic score' implicitly separates it from audit_agent_commerce_readiness, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

'Diagnose why a concrete agent-commerce goal is blocked' gives a clear triggering condition, and 'instead of a generic score' hints at when the sibling audit tool is the wrong choice. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states exclusions, so the routing signal remains indirect.

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