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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool explains errors and suggests diagnostic steps, but does not disclose how it processes input, whether it requires authentication, what happens with partial information, or the nature of the response. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool that might call external services.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand what inputs to provide and what output to expect. The tool is not complex, but the description leaves out critical details such as the format of the explanation, whether a requestId is required, or how to interpret the response, making it incomplete for reliable 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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (message, service, errorCode, requestId) or their roles. It fails to clarify which parameters are needed for a meaningful explanation or how they affect the output, providing no value beyond the bare schema names.

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 states a clear verb (Explain) and resource (a Huawei Cloud CLI, API, SDK, or agent workflow error) and adds the purpose of suggesting next diagnostic steps. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like search_docs or list_operations, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate from.

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 description implies usage when an error is encountered, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the general phrasing.

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