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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: every finding includes the remediation and flags whether an agent can apply it or the user must. It does not discuss cost, latency, or pagination, which keeps it below 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?

The scope enumeration is front-loaded in the opening sentence, followed by what a finding contains, then the when-to-use trigger. Every clause carries information and the length is proportionate to the breadth of checks. The long comma-separated list is dense but each item is a distinct diagnostic, not 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?

With an output schema present, return-shape detail is not required, and the description still characterizes findings (fix plus agent-applicable flag). Annotations cover the safety profile and the single parameter is fully specified in the schema. The only gap is the unmentioned since_days behavior, which is minor for an optional, defaulted parameter.

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, since_days, and the schema already documents it fully (default 30, max 365) at 100% coverage. The description never mentions the lookback window or how it affects findings, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all 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?

States a specific verb ('investigate') and enumerates the concrete problem classes it surfaces: failed deliveries, connections about to drop, attachments that will fail at publish, low wallet, empty calendar, unscheduled drafts, bouncing mail. That scope is clearly different from data-fetching siblings like get_post or list_posts, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 a clear triggering condition: 'For when something went wrong: a post did not appear, or the user asks what happened.' That is a usable use-case cue. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. for routine status, use get_briefing) or naming alternatives, so it falls 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.