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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: retention of 90 days, no usage limit, and the content difference between locked (top three issues + check statuses) and unlocked (all findings, fixes, written summary) reports. It doesn't cover failure modes for an invalid or expired id.

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 tight sentences: identity and id source first, then what is returned, then retention and limits. No filler and nothing important buried at the end.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly (issues, check statuses, findings, fixes, summary). Retention and rate-limit context round out what an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 already states the id is 8 characters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining that the id is the trailing segment of a tools.roasexpert.com/r/<id> link, which tells the agent how to source the value.

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 ("Returns a previously run audit by its id") and immediately clarifies where the id comes from via the URL format. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like audit_site (runs a new audit) and unlock_report (changes report state).

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 locked vs. unlocked distinction gives the agent a clear sense of what this tool yields in each case and implicitly routes to unlock_report when full findings are needed. It lacks an explicit "use this when / not when" statement or direct naming of the alternative, so it stops 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.