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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: return shape `{ state, checks, ping, suggestions }`, no auth required, and a rare-throw error model that returns `suggestions` and a `ping.ok: false` block. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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?

The description is three sentences: purpose and endpoint in the first, return shape in the second, auth/error behavior in the third. Every sentence carries distinct information, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional, well-schema-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides the return shape, auth requirements, error behavior, and a sensible default timeout note in the schema. No critical calling information is missing.

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?

The single parameter `timeoutMs` is fully described in the schema with default, bounds, and usage guidance. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies a specific action (diagnose the session) and resource (session config plus Ethora API ping), and it specifies the endpoint `GET /v1/ping`. It is unambiguous enough to be distinguished from siblings like `ethora-status` by its config-validation and ping behavior, though it does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative sibling.

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 use case is implied by 'Diagnose the session' and the explanation that it validates config consistency for the active auth mode and pings the API. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as `ethora-status` or `ethora-help`, and no when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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