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

Annotations only flag readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false, leaving the long-running and caching behavior entirely to the description — which discloses it: ≈3 minutes of work, a 45-second wait, and a 24-hour cached result returned unless 'fresh' is true. The 'run in progress or a result' return-state language tells the agent to expect a non-terminal outcome, which is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, timing second, return-state semantics last. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering runtime traits, the description carries the load well by explaining both timing and the in-progress/cached return possibilities. It omits error and failure behavior and any quota or cost implications for a non-idempotent open-world job, which is a modest 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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description only reinforces existing meaning (the 24-hour window tied to 'fresh', the store/domain fallback). It adds no format examples, validation rules, or precedence logic beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Run Fudge's free AI Readiness report') and defines the report's subject precisely: whether AI assistants can find and recommend the store's products, delivered as a score plus prioritized fixes. That substance clearly separates it from generic audit siblings such as run_knowledge_base_check or run_catalog_data_audit, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 supplies the practical context an agent needs before calling: roughly 3 minutes runtime, a 45-second wait ceiling, and the store-vs-domain prerequisite ('Required until a store is connected; afterwards, omit it'). It stops short of saying when to pick this over sibling checks, so there are no explicit exclusions or routing rules.

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