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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — it enumerates the return contents and clarifies 'Advice only,' meaning the tool does not act on the task. It omits behavioral traits visible only in the schema, such as the 30-minute auto-grouping of requests and the forced human hand-over after 2 sessions.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct piece: the trigger, a sequencing note, the return payload, and the advice-only caveat. Nothing is padded, and the most decision-relevant clause comes first.

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 12-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description usefully compensates on the return side by listing the diagnosis, checks, recovery steps, and hand-over guidance. It leaves gaps on the input side (how attempts/signature drive the result) and on auth/state behavior, so an agent is not fully equipped to call it optimally.

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?

Twelve parameters with only ~50% schema description coverage, and the description contributes almost nothing about them — no explanation of how task_summary, attempts, or signature shape the diagnosis. The one hint ('read the escalation field of the answer first') refers to a prior call's output, not to any parameter. At this coverage level the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 names a concrete verb and outcome set: it 'returns a diagnosis (state and problem type), checks to run first, up to five recovery steps, and when to hand over to a human.' That is far more specific than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like diagnose_loop and recommend_recovery, so an agent must guess which of the three overlapping tools to pick.

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 trigger condition is explicit and front-loaded: 'Use when you are unsure whether to stop and ask a human.' There is also a sequencing hint ('Read the escalation field of the answer first'). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions versus diagnose_loop/recommend_recovery/resolve_conflict.

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