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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits: it does not execute requests, does not verify undocumented fixes, and costs $0.002/call via x402. However, it omits prerequisites such as auth requirements, rate limits, and whether the returned 'safe next action' is advisory-only, which matters for an unannotated diagnostic tool.

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 sentences, tightly front-loaded with the purpose first, followed by when-to-use and then the limitations/pricing. Every sentence adds information with no filler or repetition.

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 5-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition covers purpose, timing, and limits reasonably well. It still leaves gaps on how to populate goal/attempt/request and what the returned next-action looks like, which an agent calling it correctly would benefit from.

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 5 parameters (goal, error, attempt, request, response), so the description should compensate. It partially does by telling the agent to 'provide a status, response, or error text,' mapping to the response/error fields, but it says nothing about goal, attempt, or the request object's expected shape.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Diagnose a failed API, HTTP, MCP, or tool request') and states the output type ('return a bounded safe next action'). It implicitly separates itself from a repair/execution sibling by saying 'it does not execute requests,' though it never names the alternatives request_repair or source_route directly.

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?

'Use it after a request fails when the safe next step is unclear' gives a clear triggering context, and 'it does not execute requests or verify undocumented fixes' sketches the boundary of when it should not be relied on. No sibling is named as an explicit alternative, so routing among the sibling tools is still left partly to inference.

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