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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an authentication requirement (Pro sign-in) and that the call is free of credit cost, plus an outline of the returned fields despite there being no output schema.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information — what it fetches, what comes back, what it costs, and what auth it needs. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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, the description responsibly enumerates the return payload and discloses the auth gate and cost. It stops short of error behavior (missing, expired, or unauthorized audit id), which would matter for a lookup-by-id tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including UUID format, pattern, and the provenance note 'returned by audit_url or list_audits'. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that, 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 a saved audit ... by id') plus a summary of what the payload contains (score, failing checks, crawler access, fixes). 'Saved' implicitly distinguishes it from audit_url, which creates an audit, though no sibling is named outright.

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 gives an auth prerequisite ('Requires signing in with LLMready Pro') and a cost signal ('No credit cost'), which help an agent decide whether it can call at all. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_audits or audit_url; the routing hint ('id returned by audit_url or list_audits') only lives in the schema, not the description.

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