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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating that no report is uploaded and that a digest match does not validate factual correctness or absence of harm.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by precise usage constraints and scope limits. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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?

The description covers privacy and verification limits well, but there is no output schema and the description never states what the tool returns, such as a boolean match result or mismatch details. It also leaves audit_id unexplained despite low schema description coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning and does so for the two ambiguous parameters: it explains that sha256 must be computed from the supplied artifact and that report_text selects UTF-8 result.report text. It does not explain audit_id beyond the schema pattern, which keeps it from a 5.

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: compare a locally computed SHA-256 against the retained tenant-private receipt. An agent can distinguish this from receipt-fetching siblings like get_audit_receipt, though the description does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 clear usage instructions: use the exact downloaded result JSON bytes or UTF-8 result.report text with representation report_text, and never copy the expected hash as the candidate. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as get_audit_result.

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