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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it: it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it produces, or what the 'copy-paste prompt pack with examples' means as an output of a tool call. 'Production-ready' and 'repeatable workflow you can run today' are unsupported claims rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 of promotional copy instead of specification; the tool name is repeated back at the start and every clause after it is filler ('structured, repeatable workflow', 'run today', 'copy-paste prompt pack'). Nothing is front-loaded because nothing informative is present.

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 and no output schema, the description needed to explain what a 'diag' produces and how it differs from the analyze/board/formula/tpl variants. It supplies none of that, leaving an agent unable to decide whether or when to call it.

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?

The single optional 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about how query scopes the diagnosis. With 100% schema coverage and 1 parameter, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 largely restates the tool name ('clean diag tool') and wraps it in marketing language ('production-ready... system for marketing and operations leaders') without saying what the tool actually diagnoses or returns. It gives no way to distinguish it from adjacent siblings such as clean-analyze-tool, clean-board-tool, clean-formula-tool, or clean-tpl-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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The audience phrase 'marketing and operations leaders' hints at a context, but it never tells an agent which situation selects this tool over its four sibling clean-* tools.

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