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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure beyond them: the 100-row cap per content type and that truncated totals are reported as lower bounds. This is exactly the kind of hidden gotcha an agent needs before treating output as authoritative.

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 concise sentences of roughly two dozen words. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the truncation caveat in the second; every word earns its place, with no filler or restatement of the schema.

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?

The output schema documents return values, annotations carry the safety profile, and the schema covers both parameters fully. The description supplies the remaining facts an agent needs — audit scope and truncation semantics — so nothing required for correct selection and invocation is missing.

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 both parameters have meaningful descriptions (what a project id may be, the default for expectedDevices). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond aligning 'rendered-video locales/devices' with expectedDevices contextually, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') with a clear resource ('one Tutorializer project') and detailed scope: configured locales, rendered-video locales/devices, and speech languages. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project (plain fetch) and show_project_overview (overview, not localization audit) without needing 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?

The word 'Audit' implies a review/completeness-check use case, but the description never states when to prefer this over alternatives like show_project_overview or get_project, and names no exclusion conditions. Selection guidance is left almost entirely to inference.

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