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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: first call 'only returns a price quote and runs nothing,' the report is async ('Usually within 15 minutes... worst case, 24 hours'), and on nittim's key only an id is returned. It further discloses the 5.14-credit cost, the entitlement ladder, the always-private report policy, and the BYOK in-call exception. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries genuine information, but the structure is one dense wall-of-text paragraph with mid-sentence embedded labels (TIERS:, BYOK Pro:, NEEDS A KEY:, COSTS MONEY:). There is also redundancy in the timing note: 'the report lands Usually within 15 minutes*. * Most reports land within 15 minutes. Worst case, 24 hours.' High value density undermined by poor readability.

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 6-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, this is unusually complete: eligibility, cost, two-call confirmation, authorization/approval, tiers, privacy, async timing, and file-filtering rules are all covered. The notable gap is that it never says how the returned audit id is consumed (e.g., retrieving the report via a sibling like get_audit), and it defers to external 'Protocol: server instructions' knowledge.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are already detailed, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top by pricing the operation ('Costs 5.14 credits'), explaining the confirmedCost two-call protocol in prose ('A second call, with confirmedCost set to that exact price, runs it'), and clarifying that fullScan 'buys the wider Full Audit tier... priced by pass count.'

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 opening line states a specific action with a clear resource: 'Post the files directly and get an AI audit — verdict, scores, and top findings — plus a shareable report link.' The title ('no GitHub repo required') and the framing question 'Your project isn't on GitHub?' explicitly distinguish this from the sibling audit_repo without needing to open either schema.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'For builders on Abacus/Replit/Lovable or a local folder with no git remote at all,' with the clear exclusion that this is the non-GitHub path. It also documents the full operational workflow — mint a key, expect a price quote on the first call, confirm cost on the second, and obtain owner approval for non-autonomous keys — which is far more than minimal usage context.

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