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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses a cost ($0.25 Base USDC), guarantees the service never executes the continuation, states explicit authority non-inheritance, and promises a deterministic continuation contract. These are genuinely useful behavioral traits beyond a restatement of the name.

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 a single dense, jargon-heavy run-on, and it is front-loaded with a payment notice ('Paid $0.25 Base USDC') rather than the tool's function. The substantive behavior is buried mid-sentence, hurting scannability.

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 output side is reasonably complete for a tool with no output schema (it lists the artifacts produced), but for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the inputs are under-described. Coverage is uneven rather than fully adequate.

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% and there are 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies available_tools indirectly ('constrained to exact caller-supplied tool names') and leaves goal, run_log, and constraints entirely unexplained, giving the agent little guidance on what to supply.

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 verb (Diagnose) and resource (a failed workflow, deployment, or agent run) and enumerates the output artifacts: completed state, blockers, retry traps, unknowns, smallest safe next action, and a continuation contract. This is clear and concrete, but it never names or contrasts with the closely related siblings rescue_workflow_pro, rescue_signal, or debug_python_error, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

The scope 'failed workflow, deployment, or agent run' implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing against the similar rescue_* and debug_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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