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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether the tool is destructive, what side effects occur, permission requirements, or what happens to previous artifacts. The mismatch with the schema further obscures behavior.

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 very short (two sentences), but the second sentence is misleading and contradicts the schema. Conciseness is not valuable when it sacrifices accuracy; a slightly longer but correct description would be better.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested object, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, side effects, error conditions, and practical usage context. The contradiction with the schema further reduces completeness.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. However, the description adds false information by claiming required inputs (expectedVersion, auditArtifactId) that are not in the schema, and it does not clarify how they relate to the 'input' object. This misleads rather than helps.

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?

The description states 'Attach a current public revenue audit artifact,' which gives a verb and resource, but it is vague about what 'attach' means. It also mentions 'expectedVersion' and 'auditArtifactId' as required inputs, but these are not present in the schema (only workspaceId is required), causing confusion and misleading the agent. The purpose is partially clear but undermined by the mismatch.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., run_publisher_revenue_audit, get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist). There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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