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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the paid model ($0.05 USDC on Solana), that the record is processed in memory only and never stored, that no composite score is issued, and the rule that the measurement line is LIMITED when any factor is not assessable. Missing are failure/refund behavior and whether calls are idempotent or repeatable at additional cost.

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?

It is a single dense sentence of roughly 60 words that packs price, deliverable, taxonomy, and privacy policy together without breaks. The price is front-loaded usefully, but the run-on structure makes the F-1..F-12 and LIMITED rules hard to parse at a glance.

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?

The tool has three required params including a nested record object, no annotations, and no output schema; the description compensates by describing what the returned report contains, which is genuinely helpful. However it omits what makes factors NOT-ASSESSABLE, what happens on payment or validation failure, and any pointer to the criteria/precheck tools that presumably define the format adapters.

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 per the baseline this is a 3. The description adds only that 'the record' is the submitted input and that it is never stored; it does not clarify envelope_version semantics, the format-id adapter set, or what record shape makes factors assessable versus not-assessable.

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 states a definite resource and deliverable: 'one signed context-composition report for the submitted record', and enumerates its contents (10x7 composition, M01-M15 metrics, F-1 to F-12 assessability). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names context_audit_precheck or context_audit_criteria, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone where this sits relative to its 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (likely the criteria/precheck tools), and no statement about whether the record must pass a precheck first. The only usage-adjacent statement is the price, which tells the agent about cost but not about tool selection.

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