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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds two useful facts beyond the schema: the result is a signed object and it costs $0.5 USDC. It does not describe what specifically the audit checks or how failures are reported.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The tail ('a signed result object. $0.5 USDC.') is fragmentary and the sibling-comparison sentence is slightly garbled ('declared permissions, not poisoning'), costing a point on polish.

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 annotations, an output schema and full schema coverage, the definition only needs to route the agent and flag cost/signed output — which it does. What is missing is a hint about failure modes or what constitutes a failing audit, but that is minor for a read-only tool.

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 100%, so the three parameters (task, subject, permissions) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further semantics on them, which is the baseline-appropriate level here.

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 (audit) and resource (a declared permission set) and the comparison target (the task it claims to perform). It also names the sibling it is not (audit_tool_poisoning), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this 'rather than `audit_tool_poisoning` for declared permissions, not poisoning'. That is a clear alternative selection. It does not state prerequisites or when-not conditions, 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.