Check email setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the exact areas under diagnosis (permissions, identities, transports, etc.), which goes beyond what the generic annotations convey. No contradiction detected.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb and concisely lists the diagnostic scope. No filler, and every word adds value.

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 tool with an output schema (present but not detailed), the description covers the main intent and what it inspects. It does not describe the return format or how results are presented, but the existence of an output schema shifts that burden, and the summary of diagnostic areas is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters that don't exist, and the schema confirms no inputs are required.

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 states a specific verb ('Diagnose') and a clear resource scope (permissions, identities, transports, scheduling, storage, indexing). It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's role as a health-check. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'audit', which may have overlapping purpose.

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?

The description implies the tool is used for diagnosing email setup issues but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives like 'audit' or other diagnostic siblings. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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