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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns a playbook, runs checks across integrations/ingestion/clustering, and discloses that share_report files only diagnostics plus the user's text, never customer names or document bodies. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no waste: the first states purpose and examples, the second covers behavior and privacy, the third handles sibling routing. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 4-parameter diagnostic tool with a rich output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers scope, behavior, privacy, and alternatives. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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%, so the baseline applies. The main description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, though it reinforces the privacy constraint on share_report. The schema already explains problem, area, share_report, and observed_error well.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Diagnose Atisbo'), gives three concrete symptom examples, and lists the internal checks it performs. It explicitly routes backlog work to atisbo_lookup/atisbo_analyze, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools.

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?

It states what kinds of problems should be sent here ('I connected a source and nothing appeared', 'my data is missing') and explicitly identifies the alternative for backlog cases ('Use atisbo_lookup/atisbo_analyze for backlog'). This is clear when-to-use guidance with a named exclusion.

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