diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the output shape (session status, raw API response, parsed result count) and that it exercises a search as a test, but it never states whether it is read-only, whether it triggers or refreshes a login, or whether it has side effects — meaningful gaps for a tool that touches sessions.

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, then the reported outputs, then per-argument notes. No filler sentences, though the docstring-style 'Args:' block is slightly more verbose than the two parameters warrant.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (2 optional params, no nesting) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description still covers both parameters and the diagnostic's purpose adequately; only side-effect and auth behavior remain unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it supplies the two valid store_id values ('shufersal' or 'tivtaam'), explains that omitting it checks all stores, and gives the test_query default ('eggs'). Only the semantic difference between omitting store_id and passing null is left unstated.

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 concrete verb and scope: 'Run a full diagnostic for one or all stores,' and enumerates what it reports (session status, raw API response, parsed result count). That is specific enough to separate it from the narrower login/check_login siblings, though it never names those overlapping tools explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the diagnostic framing, and it gives useful routing on the store_id axis ('omit to check all'). However, it never says when to reach for diagnose versus check_login or login_status, which cover adjacent session-inspection ground, and no exclusions are stated.

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