Diagnose performance without changing world

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'never applies fixes' and adds that it proposes next steps. That is useful confirmation, but it adds little beyond the annotation and says nothing about what the output looks like or how it is scoped.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with the read-only guarantee as a semicolon qualifier — no waste. It is arguably too terse given the missing return-value context, but nothing is padded.

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 zero-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what comes back (a diagnosis, recommendations, next steps) and how it relates to guia_performance. The safety profile is covered, but the shape of the result is not.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing to document beyond what the schema already conveys; baseline 4 applies.

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 verb (interpret) and object (existing telemetry) plus the safety stance (never applies fixes), but 'diagnose' is only loosely specified — it does not say what a diagnosis consists of or how it differs from the sibling guia_performance.

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?

'Interpret existing telemetry' hints that telemetry must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to guia_performance, guia_status, or guia_plan_gather as alternatives.

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