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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the diagnosis examines (challenge shape, bazaar extension, network, asset, resource.url), which reads as diagnostic/read-only, but never states that it is non-mutating, what permissions it needs, or what happens with a malformed challenge.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded. The trailing field list is dense jargon but does not pad – each item names a real thing being inspected, though it reads more like a data dump than prose.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description should at minimum explain the required challenge input's accepted formats and confirm read-only behavior. It describes outputs but leaves the primary input and safety profile unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at resource_url via the literal 'resource.url'; the required challenge_b64_or_json parameter, including the base64-vs-JSON duality implied by its name, is never explained anywhere.

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 action (post-mortem) on a specific artifact (402 handshake) and enumerates the fields it inspects: PAYMENT-REQUIRED shape, bazaar extension, network, asset, resource.url. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like oracle_health or oracle_pricing, though it never explicitly says so.

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 implied by the '402 handshake' scope – an agent would infer it is used when a 402 payment challenge needs debugging. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of why to pick this over oracle_health or oracle_pricing.

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