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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the output format (markdown) and the report structure, while not contradicting any annotation.

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 dense sentence front-loads the key output ('Full markdown report') and then lists the report contents without filler. Every phrase earns its place and the structure supports quick agent scanning.

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 reporting tool with an output schema, the description and schema together cover when to call it, how to get the required audit_id, and what the return value contains. Nothing essential is left ambiguous.

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 the schema already explains that audit_id is 'The audit_id returned by ghost_audit_site.' The description reinforces that the audit must be completed but does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it returns a full markdown report for a completed Ghost Audit. It enumerates the exact contents (Achilles 10-stage score, severity-ranked findings, stage analysis, recommended fixes), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghost_audit_site or ghost_audit_status by lifecycle and output type.

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 'for a completed Ghost Audit' plus the schema's note that audit_id comes from ghost_audit_site makes the intended usage clear: this is the post-audit report step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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