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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations clearly indicate the tool has no side effects, and the description's 'Turn' aligns with this. The description does not overpromise mutating behavior, so transparency is high. However, it adds no extra behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. It wastes no words and is easy to parse quickly, making it an excellent model of conciseness.

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?

Given the presence of seven parameters and no output schema, the description is far too brief to provide complete context. It does not specify how the optional parameters influence the diagnosis, what the output format looks like, or any constraints. The agent is left without crucial details for successful invocation.

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 schema coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the main input (error). The six optional parameters (arch, repo, distro, source, release, catalog_revision) are completely unmentioned, leaving their purpose and effect on the diagnosis unknown to the agent.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: converting package-not-found or command-not-found errors into matching packages and install guidance. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like search_packages (which searches by name) and explain_command (which explains commands).

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 description implies usage when encountering such errors, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like suggest_fix or resolve_install. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate, leaving some ambiguity.

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