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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the tenant-ownership constraint, which is useful authorization context, but says nothing about what 'state' contains or error behavior when the audit is not found.

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?

A single efficient, front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is appropriately sized but so terse that it omits information an agent needs.

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 one-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify what 'state' means (e.g., lifecycle stages). It establishes scope but leaves the return semantics and parameter format to inference.

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 one required audit_id parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. The description never mentions audit_id or its 32-char hex format, leaving the parameter undocumented outside the raw pattern.

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 (read) and resource (state of an audit), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like get_audit_result, get_audit_receipt, or verify_audit_report, which all sound related.

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 phrase 'owned by the authenticated tenant' implies the auth/ownership scope under which this applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling tools that might be more appropriate for results or receipts.

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