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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers none of it: no indication of whether the tool reads or mutates anything, what it returns, or what happens when the optional query is omitted. Claims about a "prompt kit" and "step-by-step instructions" describe packaging, not tool behavior, and mislead about the interaction model.

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?

Three sentences of promotional text with no front-loaded statement of function. The closing clause about the "30-day support promise" is pure advertising and earns no place in a tool definition.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain what a "diag" produces and how it differs from the analyze/board/formula siblings. Instead it provides zero operational detail, leaving an agent unable to invoke 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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the "query" parameter fully. The description adds nothing about it, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does 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?

The description never states what the tool actually does with SQL. It restates the name ("generate a ready-to-use sql diag tool workflow") and layers on unrelated marketing framing ("restaurant & brand intelligence pack") that conflicts with the SQL diagnostic theme implied by the name and the sql-analyze-tool / sql-board-tool / sql-formula-tool / sql-tpl-tool siblings. An agent cannot tell from this text whether the tool diagnoses queries, schemas, or performance.

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 at all, and no mention of the four sibling sql-* tools it must be chosen against. Phrases like "no prompt engineering needed" and "30-day support promise" are sales copy, not routing signals.

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