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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is pre-covered. The description does add genuinely useful behavior: the grouped-with-weights return shape and 'No usage limit' as a rate-limit signal. These are modest additions rather than deep behavioral disclosure, so a 3 is fair.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before how to use it. 'No usage limit' is the only near-tangential line, and it earns its place by removing a call-frequency concern.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape — and it does (grouped by category, weights, pass criteria). Safety is covered by annotations and the single optional param is fully documented. Only a slightly fuller account of the payload would be needed for a 5.

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 100% schema coverage and an enum already documenting every valid category (including the 'product' note), the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about the category filter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and its structure: 'the catalogue of checks the audit runs, grouped by category with weights and a one-line description of what passes.' An agent can immediately picture the payload. It does not name a sibling tool to distinguish itself from, so it stops short of 5.

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?

'Use it to explain a score or to see what the audit covers' gives two concrete triggering situations. It provides clear context without naming an alternative (e.g. explain_fix) or stating when not to use it, so it sits just below the explicit when/when-not bar.

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