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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are prioritized, and every issue carries a how_to_fix with actionable remediation steps, which shapes how an agent consumes the output.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and no filler. The final sentence slightly duplicates the schema's auditId description, which is the only wasted space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still adds the useful how_to_fix detail. Prerequisite (completed audit) and default audit selection are both covered; only the relationship to sibling audit tools is left implicit.

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 documents all five parameters including the severity enum and the full issueType list. The description's 'Omit auditId for the most recent audit' restates the schema's own auditId description rather than adding format or behavior detail, so it lands at the baseline.

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 ('Read the prioritized issue report from a completed site audit'), which cleanly separates it from get_audit_status and get_audit_pages. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource noun alone.

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 prerequisite ('from a completed site audit') is stated, implying this is called after run_site_audit finishes, and the auditId note gives a default path. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against get_audit_status/get_audit_pages, so routing relies on inference.

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