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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds two genuinely non-obvious traits — that listing costs no credits and that Pro authentication is required. It does not describe the shape or size of the returned list beyond the default-20-ish limit, but the cost and auth disclosures are exactly the kind of extra context that matters here.

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 short sentences, no redundancy: what it lists, its ordering, its optional filter, then cost and auth prerequisite. Front-loaded with the resource and scope, with constraints following.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers resource, ordering, filtering, cost and auth prerequisites. Only a hint about what an audit record contains (or that results are capped by limit with no pagination) is missing, which is minor.

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%, so the schema already documents limit (default 20, max 100) and the domain example. The description only restates the optional domain filter and adds ordering semantics ('newest first'), which is useful but not beyond the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (list audits) scoped to the user's LLMready account, plus ordering (newest first) and an optional domain filter. It is clearly distinct from get_audit and audit_url by name and by the 'audits saved on your account' scoping, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

'Requires signing in with LLMready Pro' gives a real prerequisite, and 'optionally for one domain' hints at the main call pattern. But it never says when to reach for this versus get_audit (single audit) or quick_check, so routing between siblings 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.