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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool is a lightweight (< 2 KB) interceptor returning a fix plus a 'verified fallback route,' which is useful output context, but it never explains what 'verified' means, whether the fix is deterministic, or what happens when no match is found.

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 sentence that front-loads the core concept and then enumerates the covered failure classes; no filler sentences. It is dense and jargon-heavy ('search-at-failure interceptor'), but nothing is wasted.

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 four all-optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations gaps to fill on safety, the description should explain the relationship among 'q', 'sku', 'jtbd', and 'provider' and what the returned fix looks like. It gives a high-level answer (fix + fallback route) but leaves the multi-parameter invocation model and no-match behavior unaddressed.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including examples for 'q'. The description only reinforces that error messages, HTTP statuses, and deprecated SKUs are valid inputs, without clarifying how the optional 'sku', 'jtbd', and 'provider' fields combine with or override 'q'. Baseline 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 names a specific verb-and-resource combination ('resolves ... into an immediate fix and verified fallback route') and enumerates concrete error classes (429/402/529, Cloudflare 1020/WAF, SDK import errors, deprecated SKUs). It is clear what the tool consumes and produces, though the coined label 'search-at-failure interceptor' is opaque and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'failures'.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this when you hit one of these error strings,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to the closely related 'failures', 'check', or 'search' siblings. The error-class list does most of the routing work by implication.

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