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

Annotations already declare it read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: it reports only the latest complete run, measures the post-rule delivered feed, and clarifies that opportunities sit outside totalIssues and the readiness score. That last point is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait structured fields cannot carry.

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 primary output is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the opportunities clarification follows. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every clause conveys a distinct, useful fact; only minor tightening would improve it.

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 present, the description must explain the return shape, and it does thoroughly: findings grouped by check with severity, counts, sample ids, explanatory guidance, plus the separate opportunities structure with counts and a rule definition. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Feed id from list_feeds.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no additional detail about how feedId affects results, which is appropriate for the baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 ('audit findings for the latest complete run') and enumerates the returned structure: grouped by check with severity, counts, sample item ids, and guidance. It also distinguishes the opportunities payload as separate from defects, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_merchant_issues or get_field_inventory.

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 context for use: it audits the DELIVERED feed (after rules) and the opportunities feed directly into preview_rule via a ready rule definition. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over sibling diagnostics such as get_merchant_issues or get_field_inventory, nor any exclusions.

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