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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the operation is a preview that changes nothing until confirm_change is called, and 'Each recorded answer spends one prompt run' discloses a cost/billing side effect. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it stops short of permissions or return format.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the purpose before the market_ids mechanics and the confirm-change caveat. Efficient and well ordered.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential preview/confirm behavior and market scoping but leaves most parameters undocumented. The workflow-level information is adequate, but the invocation details an agent needs for the six unexplained parameters are absent everywhere.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, but it only explains market_ids ('from the project context; null is the default market', one audit per market). The remaining eight parameters — cadence, engines, timezone, next_run_at, repetitions, interval_minutes, prompt_set_id — get no semantic clarification in either the schema or the description.

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: 'Preview a recurring audit schedule for a prompt set.' The word 'recurring' plus the confirm_change reference distinguishes it from the sibling prepare_launch_audit, though that contrast is implied rather than stated.

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 clarifies the two-step preview-then-confirm flow ('Nothing changes until the user agrees and you call confirm_change') and how market_ids drives scope, which is implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over the sibling prepare_launch_audit or any exclusion conditions.

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