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

With annotations present, the description adds real context: it is free and account-less, records a GAIP receipt only (which explains readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent), and enumerates the return payload (cause, exact fix, retry_after_seconds, receipt). It does not state rate limits or auth caveats, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and input instructions, then output and policy notes. Every clause carries information (inputs, outputs, cost, privacy) with no filler.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested continuity_handle object and no output schema, the description covers trigger, required inputs, returned fields, and side effects. The continuity_handle linkage is left to the schema, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by specifying input guidance ('paste the error text and/or http_status; add the url if known') and a privacy constraint ('Inputs must be public and non-personal') not present in the schema. It adds meaningful semantics without fully documenting the verbose/continuity_handle behavior.

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 action and trigger: it diagnoses why an agent, MCP or API call failed and returns cause, fix, retry_after_seconds and a receipt. The verb+resource ('diagnose a failure') is unambiguous, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like gaip_check or gaip_verify.

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 clear triggering context ('Use this when an agent, MCP or API call failed') and tells the agent what to supply (error text and/or http_status, url if known). It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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