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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them, disclosing that findings are graded, that some carry a `fix` field, and crucially that this tool never applies fixes ('craft audit --fix is what applies those, and this tool never does'). With no output schema present, this return-shape disclosure carries real weight.

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 key differentiator ('how the property is measuring, rather than what it measured') is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes. The long repetitive 'whether...whether...' enumeration of checks is informative but slightly bloated, keeping it from a 5.

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 two-parameter, zero-required audit tool with minimal annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is checked, what the output looks like (graded findings with optional fixes), that fixes are not applied here, and when to run it. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, including the 'days' lookback window and the omit-to-use-default behavior for 'property,' so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('audit' the measurement of a property) and immediately distinguishes itself from the reporting siblings by framing it as 'how the property is measuring, rather than what it measured.' The enumeration of sixteen concrete check categories makes the scope unmistakable versus list_events, list_pages, live_visitors, etc.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Run this before trusting the numbers from any other tool, and whenever a number looks wrong.' That implicitly excludes using it as a reporting tool, but no sibling is named as an explicit alternative for the reporting case, keeping it just short of a 5.

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