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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the audit dimensions (bans, blocked platforms, existing-product ownership, category list) and the fact that it is a pre-flight gate rather than a mutation. It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or the shape of the verdict returned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the checks, with the sequencing instruction placed last where it is most actionable. The opening phrase "before adding it to krawlup" partially duplicates the closing "Run this before add_product," so a few words are redundant.

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 one parameter, no nested objects and no output schema, the description should say roughly what the audit returns (a pass/fail verdict? a list of blocking reasons?) so the agent knows how to act on the result before calling add_product. It explains what is inspected but not what comes back, leaving a meaningful gap for a pre-flight gate 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 a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or validation detail for the URL, and "the optional category list" is not a parameter at all, which slightly muddies rather than clarifies the input surface.

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 names a specific verb (audit) and resource (a URL / prospective product) and enumerates exactly what is checked: bans, blocked platforms, existing product and ownership, and the optional category list. That is enough to distinguish it from add_product and from search_products without opening either schema.

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?

"Run this before add_product" gives an explicit ordering constraint and names the sibling it precedes, which is exactly the routing cue an agent needs. It stops short of a full when-not rule (e.g. what to do if the audit reports a ban or an existing owner), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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