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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that the diagnoses were 'run for a website', with no pagination, ordering, freshness, or return-shape context beyond what annotations 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and read-only, so annotations and the schema carry much of the load. However, with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the definition does not explain what a diagnosis contains or how projectId/siteId should be supplied, leaving clear gaps for invocation.

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 0% for two required parameters. 'For a website' loosely hints at siteId, but projectId is never mentioned, and neither parameter is explained in the description. With low coverage, the description should compensate but 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('traffic drop diagnoses'), with scope ('run for a website'). It clearly differs from siblings like get_seo_diagnosis (singular fetch) and start_seo_diagnosis (run new), though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as get_seo_diagnosis or list_seo_changes. The agent must infer context entirely from the name and title.

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