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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the one behavioral fact not in the annotations — results are ordered newest first — but says nothing about pagination or what a 'recent' window means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the ordering constraint is stated immediately. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple list tool, though it is arguably too thin to guide selection.

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 list tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials (what it returns and in what order). It stops short of clarifying the recency window or how it relates to the sibling single-audit getter, leaving a small but real gap.

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?

The single parameter has a full schema description ('Max results, default 20'), so coverage is 100% and the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about limit or result shape, but the baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is complete.

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 (List) and resource (prospect audits) plus the ordering (newest first), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_prospect_audit or list_audits.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the alternative tools in this cluster (get_prospect_audit for a single audit, list_audits for a broader list). The agent is left to infer routing from the name alone.

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