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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, the published-only visibility rule, and the set of fields returned, which an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the ordering and returned fields, then the visibility rule, then the filters. The sentence 'Only published audits appear: one that is in progress appears once it is published' is slightly redundant, but otherwise nothing is wasted.

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 four-parameter, no-required-field list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, returned fields, visibility, and filters. Pagination behavior beyond the cursor/limit schema fields is not elaborated, which is the only notable omission.

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 50%: limit and cursor are documented in the schema, while client_id and diagnostic_report_id have no descriptions there. The description labels those two as 'Filters', which adds modest meaning but does not explain what a diagnostic_report_id selects relative to client_id, leaving the gap only partly closed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists the published Infrastructure Audits in the connected account') and lists the fields returned (ids, Diagnostic followed, client_id, dates). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_infrastructure_audit for a single audit, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the collection lister, refinable by client_id and diagnostic_report_id. The visibility rule ('only published audits appear; in-progress appears once published') is genuinely useful guidance about when results will be absent, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as get_infrastructure_audit or list_diagnostics.

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