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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds behavior they cannot express: each call is written to the account's audit log (an observable side effect), the 90-day hard cap with cursor paging, and the specific scope ('audit') and session requirements. That is substantive disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return shape, followed by limits/pagination and then auth. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries actionable information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description describes the return structure (one row per licensed article with named fields), the pagination contract, the audit-log side effect, and all auth prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to call it successfully.

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%, so the schema already documents from, to, and cursor, including the inclusive-bound and 90-day-cap notes. The description reinforces the window cap and cursor behavior but adds no new syntax or formatting detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Specific verb (returns) plus resource (account's compliance dossier) and an enumeration of the row contents: article metadata, licence terms, attestation, and compliance flags. This is distinguishable from siblings like get_audit_events or article_53_attestation without opening 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?

Gives clear operational context: 90-day window cap, pagination via _meta.next_cursor, and the three acceptable auth paths (buyer API key with 'audit' scope, buyer session, Opedd connector sign-in). It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over a sibling such as article_53_attestation, so it falls short of a 5.

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