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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds context about the grouping and sorting of items and the link to aeo_apply, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. It does not contradict 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 two sentences plus a short final phrase. It front-loads the core concept (checklist of improvements), then details grouping and sorting, then the primary use (provides IDs), then parameter guidance, then cost. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description fully equips an agent to understand what the tool does, how to call it, and what to do with the results. The link to aeo_apply is particularly valuable for workflow completeness.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds significant meaning by clarifying the mutual exclusivity: 'Passer audit_id OU domain'. It also explains that domain uses the dernier audit terminé, which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand how to choose between the two parameters, effectively documenting a constraint beyond the schema.

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 it provides a checklist of improvements for an audit, grouped by level and sorted by projected gain. It explicitly links to aeo_apply by stating it supplies IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aeo_audit (audit generation) and aeo_apply (applying changes).

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 specifies how to call it: pass audit_id OR domain (where domain uses the last completed audit). It also notes it's free. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context from sibling tools and the description make the usage scenario clear. Inplicitly, it should be used after getting an audit result and before applying improvements.

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