Diagnose the server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'Reports' and 'Makes no request to Leboncoin', adding useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not detail potential side effects or permissions, but for a read-only diagnostic tool the added context 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?

The description is two sentences: the first packs the tool's outputs into a clear list, and the second provides a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool reports, when to use it, and explicitly notes it makes no external request. This is sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional 'country' parameter, so the schema already explains it. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Reports') and a well-defined resource: the server's configuration and observed activity. It lists concrete outputs (read backends, request pacing, blocked/rate-limited counts, storage location) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it makes no request to Leboncoin.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Reach for this when tools are failing and you want to tell the user *why*'. It also provides a concrete example of diagnostic discrimination. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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