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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about what the tool actually does, what permissions it needs, what it returns, or whether it mutates anything. Phrases like 'copy-paste prompt pack with examples' suggest a template rather than a diagnostic action, adding ambiguity rather than transparency.

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 two sentences and not bloated, but it front-loads promotional language ('production-ready', 'run today') instead of the concrete function. The second sentence describes a deliverable format rather than the tool's operation, making it less useful than a lean functional statement.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a single optional parameter, the description must explain what the tool does and what to expect. Instead it offers a generic marketing promise without stating the diagnostic logic, output format, or any operational context, leaving the agent unable to determine when or how to call it correctly.

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 100% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema already explains that it is an optional user query to scope the analysis. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema is self-sufficient.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'aov diag tool' with no clearer verb or resource. It adds marketing language ('production-ready ... system', 'copy-paste prompt pack') that does not explain what diagnostic analysis is performed or how it differs from sibling tools like aov-analyze-tool or aov-formula-tool.

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 exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as aov-analyze-tool or aov-board-tool. The agent is left to guess whether this tool produces a diagnosis, a prompt template, or something else.

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