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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description need not restate safety. It adds genuine context the annotations lack: that the record survives expiry/deletion as a fingerprint only, that older reports may have no record at all, and that contents are explicitly out of scope.

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 with zero filler, and the scope and the negative constraint ('does not retrieve report contents') land first. Every sentence earns its place.

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, a 'report fingerprint' is never defined – an agent does not know what it will actually receive back, which is a notable gap for a read tool. The behavioural side (retention, expiry, possible absence) is covered well, so the definition is adequate but incomplete.

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% – the only parameter is a bare audit_id with a 32-hex pattern and no prose. The description does nothing to compensate: it never explains what an audit_id is, where an agent obtains one, or what the pattern represents, so the sole calling parameter is left unexplained.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('tenant-private report fingerprint'), and explicitly disambiguates it from the report-contents tools by stating 'This does not retrieve report contents.' It never names the nearest sibling (get_audit_result) outright, but the negation does the distinguishing work.

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 description implies the use case (after report expiry or deletion) and warns 'Older reports may have no record,' which conditions expectations. It does not, however, state explicitly when to call this instead of get_audit_result or verify_audit_report, leaving routing to inference.

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