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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a privacy guarantee ('no performance report or private task content is uploaded'), a consent requirement, and an explicit limitation ('a pause receipt cannot prove recovery or external silence') that prevents an agent from over-claiming results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the two operating modes and followed by the privacy/limitation caveat. No filler, though the abstractions ('before/after diagnostic protocol') trade some readability for density.

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 four-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the action modes and privacy posture but omits what each action returns, how consent interacts with the default, and the account_ref scoping behavior. Adequate but with visible gaps an agent would notice at call time.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does so partially: 'completed pause IDs' maps to request_ids, 'explicit consent' maps to consent, and the two action values are loosely described. But account_ref is not addressed in the description and no format or cardinality detail (uuid, max 20) is added beyond the schema.

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 two concrete operations mapping to the enum: read the local before/after diagnostic protocol, or correlate owned completed pause IDs with service records. That verb+resource pairing is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like eclypse_pause or eclypse_reflect, though the abstraction 'recovery diagnostic' keeps it from being fully self-explanatory.

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 phrase 'under explicit consent' establishes a precondition for the pause_evidence path, and the two action modes imply when each is appropriate. However, it never names an alternative sibling tool or states when NOT to use this one, leaving the routing decision largely to inference.

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