webmaster_get_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation and lists returned attributes, but it does not explain the meaning of 'native severity', pagination, time-range scope, or any host-state prerequisites, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 sentence that names the verb, resource, and fields with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic operation but leaves the unusual term 'native severity' undefined and does not tie the single parameter to the described resource. The sibling list helps domain context, but the description itself is a bit thin.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description never mentions host_id, so the only parameter is left entirely to its property name for meaning. An agent can guess that host_id identifies the target host, but the description adds no clarification about format, source, or valid values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource ('problems') plus the key fields returned (severity, presence state, state-change time). This distinguishes it from sibling getters like webmaster_get_summary or webmaster_get_recrawl_task, which target different resources.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling names that this is for site diagnostics; the sentence itself provides only the operation, not selection criteria.

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