diagnose_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the four check categories and the shape of the result (one-line verdict plus 'unavailable_tools'). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or note any latency/cost, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 purpose, then the checks, then the return shape, then the usage trigger. Three sentences are dense but each carries actionable content; the parenthetical about 'Error translating query' is arguably the most valuable sentence, so placement late is the only minor flaw.

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-parameter diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the description still explains what is checked and what the report contains, including the 'unavailable_tools' key. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it or interpret its result is missing.

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, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level ambiguity exists for an agent to resolve.

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) and resource (Scopus connectivity and entitlement) and enumerates exactly what it checks. It is unmistakably distinguishable from every sibling, all of which are search, analysis, or utility tools.

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 says when to run it ('Run this first when Scopus behaves strangely'), names the concrete trigger ('valid searches fail with Error translating query'), and explains the likely root cause versus a wrong diagnosis (missing subscriber entitlement, not bad syntax).

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