Diagnose Hosting Issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses that all live checks run in parallel, that a knowledge-base search is included, and that the output is a single structured report. It does not mention potential side effects or error behavior, but for a read-only diagnostic this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, with the main function front-loaded and the usage alternative in the second sentence. No 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?

For a tool with two simple parameters and no annotations, the description gives a good picture of scope, execution, and output. It stops short of detailing report contents or expected runtime, but an agent can call it correctly with the provided information.

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 coverage is 100% and the description only echoes the two parameters without adding syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'diagnose', identifies the resource (hosting issue via URL + symptom), and lists the exact checks run. Explicitly positions itself as the main entry point, distinguishing it from the check_* / search_troubleshooting_kb siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool first for open-ended 'why is my site doing X' questions, and names the alternative tools for when the exact check is already known. This is a clear when/when-not directive.

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