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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: it does not reauthenticate, does not persist/save the contract, and is scoped to the single authenticated store. Those are real operational details an agent would not otherwise know.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the scope limitation is front-loaded in the second sentence. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the cause of the missing coverage rather than a virtue.

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 diagnostic tool with an enum parameter, an undocumented UUID parameter, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. It covers side effects and scope but leaves the agent without enough to decide when to call it or how to populate its arguments.

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% for two parameters, including a source enum (wix/mcp) and a UUID supportCode. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap; an agent gets no hint about what source selects or when supportCode is needed.

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 action ("Consulta evidências registradas por etapa") but never names the contract-configuration diagnosis that the tool name and title promise, so the resource is only loosely identified. It also gives no signal distinguishing it from sibling diagnose_label_issue or diagnose_quote_issue beyond the implicit subject. Purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects this tool over the other diagnose_* siblings, and no exclusions. The only scoping statement ("Limitado à loja autenticada") is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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