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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's word "Fixes" is slightly ambiguous about whether it applies remedies or returns troubleshooting steps, though the read-only annotation resolves that in practice. No added context on what the response contains or whether it needs a live connection.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a concrete symptom list and zero filler. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter, annotation-covered, output-schema-less tool, the description supplies the key framing: the symptom space it covers. The only real gap is what the caller gets back (steps, commands, links), which is a minor omission at this complexity level.

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% and the single symptom parameter already carries a description with examples. The description's symptom list loosely echoes those examples (connection refused, copy not working) without adding format or matching guidance, so it neither compensates for nor improves on the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Fixes for common phone-to-machine problems" names the resource (phone-to-machine connectivity issues) and enumerates concrete symptoms: timeout, refused, tmux session not found, copy not reaching the phone. An agent can tell this is a troubleshooting-guidance tool, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the tmux_howto or setup_guide siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use it when one of the listed symptoms occurs. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to or from the sibling tools (tmux_howto, setup_guide), which plausibly overlap on the tmux and copy symptoms.

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