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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by explaining what the tool covers (upload process, how it works, five questions, pricing, free trial, starting point), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Describes a full Autrady audit') and then lists the key aspects. It's efficient and covers all necessary points without excessive verbosity. The usage guidance is appended naturally at the end.

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 no-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it includes, and when to use it. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since the description explains the content. The sibling tool 'luck_check' is different enough that no further differentiation is needed.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description compensates by explaining the tool's content and scope, which is sufficient for a no-parameter informational tool. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that by providing clear context about what the tool returns.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: describing a full Autrady audit, including what to upload, how it works, the five questions it answers, pricing, free trial, and where to start. It uses a specific verb ('describes') and resource ('Autrady audit'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'luck_check' by focusing on audit details rather than luck checking.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it when someone asks how to test a bot, a newsletter or a backtest properly, what Autrady does, or what it costs.' This provides clear usage context and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives like 'luck_check' by focusing on audit-related queries.

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