Check setup and connection

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe non-mutating call. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it performs a LIVE authenticated connection test, inspects specific credential artifacts, reports the license tier, and returns 'the exact fix' on failure. It does not describe latency or how the live check behaves on failure, keeping 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the failure behavior and the invocation trigger. No waste.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description characterizes the return adequately ('returns the exact fix'). For a parameterless diagnostic with a readOnlyHint annotation, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so schema-based parameter semantics are moot and a baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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?

Specific verb ('Diagnose') plus resource ('your setup'), and it enumerates exactly what is checked: .p8 key, Key ID, Issuer ID, live authenticated connection, and license tier. This is clearly distinguishable from all siblings, which are action/mutation tools rather than diagnostics.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run this first if something isn't working.' Clear context for invocation. It doesn't name an alternative to use instead, but for a setup diagnostic there is no meaningful sibling alternative, so this is close to complete.

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