catalog_get_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. While 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or what the response contains. It lacks details about potential side effects, rate limits, or output format.

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, focused sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without wasted words. Every part of the sentence adds meaning, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about the return structure of diagnostic issues, any prerequisites (e.g., catalog existence), and how results might inform ad eligibility remediation. No annotations are available to fill these gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The only parameter, catalog_id, is self-explanatory from its name, but the description fails to add any value beyond the schema, such as format expectations or how the ID is used.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('diagnostic issues') and its scope ('catalog quality and ad eligibility'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like catalog_get, which likely retrieves basic catalog details rather than diagnostic issues.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catalog_get or catalog_list_products. No exclusions or contextual hints are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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