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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value: it is text-only, costs nothing, works on an unrecorded script, and explicitly scopes what it does NOT measure (retention, delivery, editing, thumbnail, topic, distribution). It stops short of describing return shape or polling/expiry behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the id source, then layers usage and scope. Slightly long with several scope-limiting clauses, but each sentence carries distinct routing or boundary information rather than redundancy.

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 single-param read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the needed usage context and the important negative scope. It could note whether results are transient or how to interpret the attention-risk output, a small 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 the schema already documents analysis_id including its origin from audit_script. The description reinforces the provenance but adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource (fetch audit state by analysis_id) and explicitly anchors it to the sibling audit_script that produces the id. An agent can distinguish this from audit_script/audit_hook without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions (previous audit still running, or user references an earlier audit) and clarifies it performs no new analysis, which routes the agent away from re-running audit_script. Nothing is left to inference.

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