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

Annotations only establish that this is a safe read (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false), but the description goes further: it discloses the return shape (ONE prioritized fixPlan with what/why/how/action plus the exact fix tool), the ordering rule (delivery blockers first, and why), and the intended follow-up workflow of walking the fixPlan top-down. That is substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with when-to-use, then behavior, then workflow, then the alternative — a logical order with no filler. It is longer than strictly necessary (multiple quoted trigger phrases), but nearly every clause contributes routing or behavioral value for a complex orchestration tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations covering returns, the description fully compensates by explaining the consolidated fixPlan structure, its prioritization logic, and the per-area sections. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and act on this tool is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (days) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents its default and 7–90 bounds. The description never mentions the trend window, so it adds nothing here; baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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+resource ('FULL ACCOUNT AUDIT') and spells out precisely which analyses it aggregates: campaign delivery diagnosis, setup audit, performance analysis, and pipeline view. It explicitly contrasts itself with the single-area siblings, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete user phrasings that should trigger it ('audit my whole account', 'why am I not closing deals — check it all') and an explicit exclusion: for a single area, call diagnose_campaign / audit_setup / analyze_performance / analyze_pipeline directly. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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