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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: unrecognized errors trigger an automatic live OpenAPI spec lookup, which explains the open-world behavior. It does not describe the shape of the diagnostic response, but adds meaningful process detail.

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?

Front-loads the diagnostic purpose, then follows with triggering examples and an important behavior note. The example list is somewhat long but each item clarifies an accepted trigger; no sentence is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggering conditions, accepted input examples, and automatic spec lookup behavior. It could go further by indicating what the diagnosis output looks like or how `context` improves results, but it is largely complete.

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%, so the schema already defines both parameters. The description adds semantic value by illustrating accepted forms of the `error` parameter ('422', '400 error', 'rate limited', 'transaction failed', 'FAILED status', 'any error code or message'), helping an agent format the required input. The `context` parameter is not elaborated in the description.

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 ('Diagnoses') and resource ('API errors, HTTP status codes, or unexpected responses from the Yield.xyz API'), clearly identifying this as a troubleshooting tool rather than a data lookup. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools such as actions_* or yields_get_*.

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 explicit triggering conditions with concrete developer phrases ('I'm getting a 422', 'rate limited', 'why did this fail') and examples of error inputs. It does not state when not to use the tool or name sibling alternatives, but no obvious alternative diagnostic sibling exists.

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