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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Changes nothing.' Beyond annotations it adds the return contract (requested flag, state, grade, PDF link) and the conditional nature of the PDF, which is genuine added value. No rate limits or state-transition guidance.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the read action, then the return values, then the alternative routing. Little waste, though the opening fragment is grammatically loose.

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-required-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the outcome shape (requested/state/grade/PDF link) and the behavior change on download. It omits any state vocabulary or indication of what to do when the audit is still pending, which is the main remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (output, business, download) are already documented in the schema, including the terminal-vs-tool-call distinction for 'download'. The description echoes the download/PDF behavior but adds no syntax or semantics the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (pricing audit) and both actions (read state, download report PDF), and explicitly distinguishes itself from agenta_audit_request. The opening sentence is a fragment ('The audit state, and download the report PDF once it exists'), which slightly blurs whether the tool reads or downloads, but the second sentence clarifies both.

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?

It gives a clear use condition and names the alternative sibling: 'If none was requested, use agenta_audit_request.' That is an explicit routing rule. It stops short of full coverage — nothing about polling/retrying while the audit is still in progress — so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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