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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and other safety traits, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains that the tool checks a context capsule of verified facts and produces a compatibility verdict if proposed_data is supplied. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't cover all edge cases.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes relevant sibling names without excess. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Given annotations cover safety and schema covers parameters, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and the role of proposed_data. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the audit returns or error conditions, leaving a slight 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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a bit of context for proposed_data (checking mutations), but does not significantly elaborate on other parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Audit' and the resource 'handoff between two chain stages', with specific detail about verifying facts and catching field mutations. It also names sibling tools, distinguishing itself from related operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool—when auditing a handoff between stages—and mentions sibling tools as related. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide a direct comparison to alternatives beyond naming them.

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