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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: only 'published' audits are returned, implying drafts or unpublished records are not accessible. It does not say what happens for a missing or unpublished id.

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?

Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded. 'As published to the account' partially repeats 'published', a minor redundancy, but nothing is padded or buried.

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?

A simple single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, so the burden is light. However, with no output schema the description should hint at the returned shape (findings, recommendations, metadata), and it instead gestures at findings without describing them.

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?

With a single required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the schema documents only 'uuid' format. The description clarifies that the id selects a published audit, which adds a little meaning, but gives no guidance on where such ids come from (presumably list_infrastructure_audits).

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: returns one published Infrastructure Audit by id, scoped to the account. The sibling list_infrastructure_audits is not named, so the single-vs-list distinction is left for the agent to infer.

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 only usage signal is the vague phrase 'Fits working from its findings and recommendations', which describes a scenario rather than a selection rule. It never says when to use this instead of list_infrastructure_audits or get_strategic_assessment, nor what to do when the id is unknown.

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