WooCommerce: Diagnose store

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only' and 'Changes nothing on the store', so there is no ambiguity about mutation. It adds real behavioral value by disclosing the full check inventory and the shape of results (prioritised findings with concrete fixes), though it says nothing about runtime cost, required permissions, or limits on the number of findings returned.

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-loaded with the core action and outcome, then a compact check list that reads as a spec rather than filler. It is a single dense sentence-pair; the bracketed '[UNIFIED]' tag and long enumeration add bulk but each item conveys real diagnostic scope.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does reasonably well by stating findings are prioritised and paired with a concrete fix, plus the categories checked. The remaining gap is structural detail about the response (grouping, severity levels, pagination of findings) and the unexplained 'site' 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'site', and the description never mentions it — no indication whether it is a site URL, site ID, or alias, nor how it behaves in a multi-site setup. With only one parameter the ambiguity is contained, but the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 and resource ('Run a read-only health diagnosis of the WooCommerce store') and then enumerates the exact checks performed. The commerce-specific surface (payment gateways, shipping methods, cart/checkout pages) makes it distinguishable from a generic WordPress site diagnosis without needing to open the schema.

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 'health diagnosis' framing and the explicit 'Changes nothing on the store' line imply the right context (pre-launch or troubleshooting audits), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as the WordPress-level diagnose sibling. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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