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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the class of findings returned, but says nothing about scope or permissions – notably that the call is refused unless access is granted to a targeted project, which is real behavioral context the agent needs.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the capability and its outputs come first, then the usage cues. Every clause carries information about either what is detected or when to invoke it.

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 only two optional params, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (a set of inconsistencies) and when to run it, so an agent can call it correctly with defaults. It is slightly thin on scope/permission behavior, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 both parameters (minSeverity, expectedProjectId) are already documented in the schema, including the default and the project-targeting/refusal semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb (audits) and resource (complete data model MCD/ERD), then enumerates the exact defect classes it detects (missing PK, broken FK, FK cycles, duplicate names, many-to-many without junction table). This distinguishes it from the validate_* and analyze_canvas/analyze_tasks siblings, which target other artifacts.

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?

Gives two concrete triggers: a user asking 'check my ERD', and the pre-export checkpoint before proposing SQL. That is clear when-to-use context, but it never names an alternative to prefer instead (e.g., validate_arch, export_ddl) or states when this tool is not the right call.

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