Recommend resolution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It describes an advisory, read-only-looking operation ('return recommended next actions') without explicitly stating side effects, permissions, or whether it modifies anything. It adds some context (for an operations specialist) but does not disclose any deeper behavioral traits beyond what the name implies.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core verb ('Diagnose') and immediately communicates both the diagnostic and recommendation actions. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity—one parameter, no output schema, and a clear purpose—the description is largely complete. It covers what it does and for whom, though it could briefly mention the format of the recommendations (e.g., a list of actions). This is a minor gap, not a major omission.

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?

The schema only defines orderId as a string with zero descriptive coverage. The description ties orderId to 'an order's delay', providing meaningful context for the parameter. Although it doesn't specify format or how to obtain orderId, the single simple parameter is adequately explained by 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: diagnose an order's delay and return recommended next actions. It uses a specific verb ('diagnose' and 'return') and resource ('order's delay', 'recommended next actions'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'diagnose_order_delay' by adding the action recommendation component.

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 description implicitly conveys when to use this tool—when you need recommended actions for an operations specialist. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'diagnose_order_delay', so it lacks explicit when-not guidance. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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