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

The description claims the tool reads only the cited file and moves no score or verdict, which contradicts the readOnlyHint: false annotation. This is a direct conflict.

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 mostly concise and front-loads the key requirement, but includes redundant phrases like 'the report keeps recording what was true of the commit it ran on' which could be trimmed.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the purpose, the key requirement, the read scope, and the output format ('fixed, still present, or undetermined'). It does not describe error handling, but that is not essential here.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the description adds context by saying 'or a commit named in the call' for ref and 'from a finished audit' for auditId, but findingKey is left to the schema.

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 clearly states the tool re-checks one finding against current code or a specified commit, with a specific verb and scope. It also specifies the output categories and the limitation to one file. This distinguishes it from the related audit/dispute tools.

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?

It mentions a key requirement and that it is free and capped per day, and that it moves no score or verdict. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like get_audit or dispute_finding, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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