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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing a capability boundary ('does not verify the site's backend or grant access to it'). It does not cover failure modes for an invalid or expired key, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the return payload is enumerated compactly in one sentence. The closing read-only sentence is largely redundant with the annotations, costing a bit of tightness.

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 an output schema present, the description is not obligated to enumerate return fields (it does so anyway), and the annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is error/authorization behavior for a bad audit_key, which matters for a capability-gated read.

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 50%: revision and request_id are documented in the schema, but audit_id and audit_key are not, and the description only gestures at key semantics via 'private capability' without explaining that the 64-hex key is the authorization secret or how the two required params interact.

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 and resource ('Reads an existing audit') and enumerates what it returns, so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not differentiate itself from related siblings such as begin_audit, record_audit_context, or submit_findings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'using its private capability' implies the caller must already hold the audit_key, and the read-only boundary line hints at when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use routing against the sibling audit/record tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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