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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content beyond that: it returns a normalized root cause plus a next action and support bundles, telling the agent the output is actionable rather than raw diagnostics.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, with no filler. There is mild redundancy between 'failed or needs explanation' and 'normalized root-cause diagnostics' in the second sentence, but the structure is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the unresolved resource_id semantics, which the description should have clarified given the post-vs-delivery ambiguity it itself introduces.

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 single required parameter resource_id has no documented meaning anywhere. The description's phrase 'post or provider delivery' leaves it ambiguous whether resource_id is a post ID, a delivery ID, or either, which is exactly the ambiguity the description should resolve.

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 specific verb and resource: it returns normalized root-cause diagnostics and support bundles for a post/delivery. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_post_status or get_delivery_receipt, though it never names them, so differentiation is implied by the word 'root cause' rather than explicit.

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 gives a clear trigger condition — use when a post or provider delivery failed or needs explanation — and discourages guessing. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. diagnose_connection) or stating when not to use it.

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