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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the description's "Advice only" is a genuinely useful clarification that the tool takes no mutating action despite the non-read-only hint. It also discloses the bounded output (up to five steps) and hand-over behavior, though it omits rate limits and the schema's automatic 2-session hand-over rule.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the return contract, closed by the "Advice only" qualifier. No filler or repetition of the name.

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 no output schema the description correctly summarizes the return shape, which is the main gap it fills. But for an 11-parameter tool with nested objects and enums, it says nothing about the required inputs (task_summary, attempts) or the episode/session bookkeeping, leaving the agent to reconstruct the calling contract from the schema alone.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 45% schema description coverage, the description must carry more of the load, yet it names none of them. Key inputs such as attempts, task_summary, episode_id grouping, and budget are left entirely to the schema, and the description does not explain how the caller's history affects the recommendation.

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 states a specific trigger and a concrete return contract: a diagnosis (state and problem type), checks to run first, up to five recovery steps, and hand-over criteria. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like diagnose_loop or counsel_agent, which an agent would need to choose between.

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 when you can't decide between options or keep reopening a decision" gives a concrete, actionable trigger rather than vague context. However, it names no exclusions and no alternatives, so the agent must infer when diagnose_loop or counsel_agent is the better pick.

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