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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool produces a PR comment or CI/CD compliance report artifact, which is useful beyond the annotations, but an output schema exists and no auth, rate-limit, or data-handling behavior is disclosed.

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, zero filler, with the audit scope front-loaded and the output artifact stated second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers inputs and outputs adequately. The only real gap is routing guidance relative to sibling audit tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already explains that diff_or_code accepts a diff, package.json, or snippet and that project_name defaults to 'Current Project'. The description repeats the input types without adding syntax, size limits, or format constraints beyond the schema, 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 (audit) with named inputs (code diff, package.json dependencies, source snippet) and named compliance domains (EU AI Act, non-EEA transfers, prompt retention). This distinguishes it from the sibling audit_local_ai_stack, which audits a local stack rather than a diff or snippet.

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 implies usage by listing accepted inputs and the PR/CI output context, so an agent can infer it is for reviewing code artifacts. However, it never states when to prefer this over audit_local_ai_stack or how it relates to the other compliance siblings, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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