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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context that the report is finished and should only be fetched after get_audit succeeds. It does not describe failure behavior if called too early, but the annotation lowers the disclosure burden.

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 short sentences with no wasted language. The output format and the key prerequisite are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It could be slightly more explicit that it retrieves the report for a specific audit_id, but the essential gating condition and output format are covered.

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 schema already defines audit_id and the format enum. The description mentions Markdown versus JSON but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource and output formats clearly: the finished audit report as Markdown or full JSON. It also distinguishes itself from get_audit by saying it should be used only after get_audit reports success. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve,' but the purpose is still easy to infer.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: use only once get_audit says succeeded. That tells the agent when this tool is appropriate relative to the status-checking sibling. It does not explicitly name exclusions or other alternatives, but the key gating condition is present.

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