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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no side effects, no indication whether the tree is mutated or merely inspected, no auth/plan requirements beyond price, and no sense of what a verdict looks like. The pricing detail ($0.99 after free trial, or plan-included) is genuinely useful behavioral context, which keeps this above a 1.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the operation name plus the nested-args hint are front-loaded. It is tight, though the terse "Args:" notation compresses so far that meaning is lost for three of the four parameters.

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?

This is a complex tool with a nested object parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. Given that the description is the sole source of semantics, it should explain the audit criteria, the meaning of harness/version/policy, and roughly what comes back; instead it supplies only a tree shape and a price.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does expand `tree` into files with path and one of content/content_b64/link, which is real value the schema (object, no detail) does not provide. But `harness`, `version`, and `policy` — including the required `harness` and `version` — receive zero explanation of expected values or semantics.

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?

"Pre-open audit of a received tree" gives a verb (audit) and a resource (a received file tree), and it is distinguishable from siblings like sanitise_tree and verify_receipt by name. However, "pre-open" and "received tree" are unexplained jargon, and the description never says what the audit actually checks or returns, so the agent knows only the general category of operation.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than sanitise_tree, verify_receipt, or lookup_verdict, nor any prerequisite, ordering, or exclusion. The only contextual sentence is a pricing clause, which informs cost decisions but not tool selection.

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