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

The safe read-only behavior is already captured by readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are 'latest,' formatted as Markdown, aggregated per account, and represent a high-level roll-up across all audit rules. It does not contradict the 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 just two sentences with clear front-loading of the action, target resource, and output format. There is no filler, and the phrase 'suitable for direct AI consumption' adds relevant guidance rather than being padding.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main points an agent needs: what to call it for, the result format, and the aggregation level. It's slightly sparse on detail of what the Markdown summary actually contains, but the high-level roll-up context makes it sufficient for the intended use.

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%, and the accountIds parameter already carries the specific true-natural language about TrueClicks account IDs, the ID type nuance, and the empty-array behavior. The description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get the latest account-aggregated audit results') and states the output format (Markdown summary) and scope (high-level roll-up across all audit rules). This makes it clearly distinct from the per-rule and per-campaign audit siblings, even without naming them.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when an account-level, high-level Markdown summary of audit results is needed. However, it never names or excludes alternatives like audit_rule_result or audit_rule_output_table, so in a list of many audit sibling tools the selection guidance is mostly left to inference.

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