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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only or destructive, what happens with the report (e.g., returned or stored), or any auth requirements. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core action and available formats efficiently. However, it could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., listing required parameters) without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the audit report contains, the purpose of agentId and date range, or any output format details. The tool generates a report, but an agent would need to infer return type and behavior from the name alone.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters beyond what the schema provides. The description mentions format options but does not elucidate agentId, from, or to (e.g., what agentId represents, the date-time range format). The default value and enum for format are already in the schema, so no added value.

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 explicitly states the action ('generate audit report') and lists the available formats (json, markdown, soc2), which matches the input schema enum. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'agent_audit_query' (queries existing audits) and 'agent_audit_record' (records an event), as this tool generates a report.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., agent_audit_query, agent_audit_record) but are not mentioned or contrasted. The description does not specify prerequisites, such as the need for a prior audit record or the scope of the report.

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