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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the data windows (30 days for Google Ads and Meta, 28 days for Search Console), the ok/warning/critical severity model, and that each area comes with top actions plus the tool that performs the fix. It omits cost/latency expectations for what is clearly a heavy multi-platform read, and 'Reads only' merely restates readOnlyHint.

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?

Front-loads purpose then organizes coverage by platform in a single dense paragraph with no filler sentences. The run-on enumerations and minor redundancy ('the website itself', 'from the weekly site health') make it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the scorecard contents, severity levels and action recommendations, and it specifies date ranges. It does not say how unconnected platforms are handled or whether a partial audit is returned, which matters for an open-world multi-source tool.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already saying the client name comes from list_clients. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 for fully documented params applies.

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 ('Audit one client and return a scorecard') and enumerates exactly which platform areas the scorecard covers. This clearly separates it from narrower siblings like site_check, site_health, ads_diagnose or rank_report, which each cover only one slice.

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?

'Use for a new client, or when asked what to fix first' gives clear trigger conditions, and the single-client framing implicitly contrasts with audit_prospect. However, no sibling is named as an alternative, so the agent must infer that prospects belong to audit_prospect and single-channel checks to the narrower tools.

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