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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: source is Audit Analytics public aggregate data, and each call costs $0.02 USDC. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the use case, then provides the data scope, source, audience, and price in a compact form. The 'Used by CFOs and audit committees' sentence is somewhat redundant with the RFP context, but it does not add significant bloat.

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 adequately specifies the returned benchmark dimensions and data source. The main gap is that it does not clarify how the optional industry input affects results or describe the exact output shape, but the tool is simple enough for an agent to proceed.

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 only 33%, and the description partially compensates by linking annual_revenue_usd to revenue bands and auditor_tier to Big 4 vs national vs regional tiers. However, it gives no guidance on the optional industry parameter, leaving its role and expected format unclear.

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?

Description opens with concrete use cases and states exactly what data the tool returns: audit fee benchmarks, total fees, and fees as a percentage of revenue, segmented by revenue band and auditor tier. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling benchmark 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?

Explicit 'Use when benchmarking audit costs, evaluating auditor proposals, or preparing an audit committee RFP' provides clear trigger conditions. It does not name when-not-to-use or an alternative tool, but the use cases are specific enough for selection.

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