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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: unavailable checks stay marked unobservable rather than being dropped or guessed, and the prior audit must correspond to the same URL. It does not state whether the call mutates stored state, whether it is idempotent, or how long a recheck takes.

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 the action and followed by behavioral and prerequisite details; nothing is repeated or padded. 'Preserve unavailable checks as unobservable' is slightly compressed phrasing but still parses as an instruction about result handling.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the core concept, the prerequisite, and one result-handling rule. It falls short on what the audit JSON must contain and what the agent receives back, leaving meaningful gaps for a nested-object 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains that 'previous_audit' is the original audit JSON and that it must match the supplied URL. The url parameter and the expected internal shape of the nested audit object remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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: 'Recheck the native findings from a saved audit.' The phrase 'after changes are live' frames it as a post-deployment verification pass, which helps distinguish it from a fresh assessment. It never names the closest sibling (reassess_launch), so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a timing condition ('after changes are live') and a hard prerequisite ('Requires original audit JSON for the same URL'), which is real usage guidance. It does not say when to prefer reassess_launch or assess_launch instead of this verification step, nor what happens if the URL differs from the saved audit.

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