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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces READ-ONLY while adding context annotations cannot express: that it only flags 'mancante' when the product type truly requires the attribute, priority logic (alta = Amazon ERROR or missing GPSR), and the EPR-account-level caveat (SP-API reads the alert but does not set it).

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, then detail follows. It is dense and long with many parentheticals (Italian/English mix), and some content arguably belongs in the schema, but nearly every sentence carries operative information rather than filler.

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 read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description fully describes the return payload (SKUs with gaps, priority, per-attribute counts, most frequent gaps) and the full-vs-standard scope, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly unstated.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented, but the description elaborates the mode semantics (what standard vs full actually scan) beyond the terse schema enum description, adding real meaning. max_pages and account_id gain no extra detail beyond the schema.

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 (audit compliance/GPSR of the catalog, EU/IT) and enumerates exactly which attributes are checked per SKU. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like audit_title_compliance, audit_aplus_coverage, and audit_catalog_quality by scoping to compliance/GPSR attributes and Amazon compliance issues.

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 contrasts mode='full' vs the standard default and names the triggering condition ('quando l'utente chiede di verificare "tutti i requisiti di conformità"'). It also routes the agent to update_listing for corrections and warns about EPR being account-level rather than listing attributes, which prevents a common misuse.

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