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

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back and notes the escalation rule ('when to hand over to a human') and that it is 'advice only'. There is a mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, but the service plausibly records session state, so it is not a clear contradiction.

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 tight sentences with the trigger front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries either the condition, the return contents, or the behavioral caveat.

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?

It compensates well for the missing output schema by listing return contents and the escalation behavior, but with 11 parameters, nested objects, and only 45% schema coverage, the description leaves several inputs unexplained for an agent deciding how to populate them.

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 45% across 11 parameters, and the description mentions none of them (no guidance on attempts, conflicting_instructions, budget, domain, or episode grouping). The rich episode_id and retry semantics live only in the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 trigger (instructions conflict and you can't tell which wins) plus the resource it returns (diagnosis, checks, recovery steps, escalation criteria). It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like diagnose_loop, recommend_recovery, or counsel_agent, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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 opening clause is an explicit when-to-use condition ('Use when instructions conflict and you can't tell which one wins'). It gives clear context but no when-not guidance and names no alternative tool, so routing against the similar siblings is left to inference.

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