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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description reveals that it is async, returns an immediate response with auditId and eta, and explains quota usage. With annotations covering the basic traits and the description adding async and budget details, the score is appropriately above midpoint.

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 two sentences and includes essential information: what it does, return fields, follow-up tools, and quota consumption. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could be trimmed slightly (e.g., 'caller-supplied' vs 'optional candidate domains' introduces minor redundancy). Still, it earns its keep.

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?

Given that output schema exists (implicit from the described return fields), the description properly defers return value details. The complexity is high (10 params, async flow), but the description covers the core workflow, quota, and dependencies (status/report tools). The annotation set and schema are extensive, making this description complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the purpose of 'domains' (max 50, duplicates merged) and the meaning of optional fields like brand_aliases and candidate_domains in the context of an audit. This goes beyond what the schema provides, justifying a 4.

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 specifies that the tool enqueues an async brand audit across up to 50 domains, with optional depth, aliases, and candidate domains, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'brand_audit_single' or 'brand_audit_status'. It gives a precise verb and resource with explicit scope and mode details.

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 tells how to use the tool, what it returns immediately, and how to check results (poll status, fetch report). It also mentions quota consumption. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or compare with other tools like 'brand_audit_single' for smaller audits.

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