Diagnose

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns ranked findings, each carrying the evidence it was drawn from, and recovery steps ordered safest-first. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the output structure and ordering rationale. No contradiction with annotations.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, then lists the finding categories; the second clarifies the output structure and gives a usage cue. There is zero wasted text — every phrase contributes to purpose, output, or usage.

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 tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the high-level behavior (what it does, what it returns) and the general trigger. However, it omits any parameter semantics and does not describe the exact structure of the returned findings beyond 'evidence' and 'recovery steps'. Given that annotations cover safety, this is a moderate gap — the agent knows when and why to call it, but not precisely how parameters alter the result.

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 only 25% (only includeInfo has a description). The tool description does not mention any of the four parameters (includeInfo, windowHours, graceMinutes, stuckAfterMinutes) at all. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate by explaining parameter roles, but it does not. This leaves the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 opens with 'Run the whole diagnosis catalog and return ranked findings' — a specific verb and resource — and enumerates concrete finding categories (retry storms, expiry overruns, stuck/abandoned workers, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like failed_jobs or stuck_jobs, which target single issues, and ends with an explicit purpose cue: 'the tool to reach for when the question is what is wrong?'. The purpose is unambiguous and well differentiated.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: 'This is the tool to reach for when the question is what is wrong?' — that tells the agent when to choose it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., for a single specific symptom use the corresponding sibling). That is a clear context but no exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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