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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context about audit scope (35–40 rules, specific rulebook topics) but omits behavioral details like whether the tool returns a report, is read-only, or has any side effects.

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 description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a parenthetical rule count. No redundant or filler words.

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?

The description explains what the audit covers but leaves critical usage details unspecified: it does not clarify that at least one of url or text is typically required, nor does it describe what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, detailed report). Given the complexity of a 35–40 rule audit and the absence of an output schema, this is a significant 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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for url, text, and asset_type.

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 clearly states the tool runs a specific VARA Dubai marketing self-audit with a rule count and mentions key topic areas. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_fca_pro_check or run_ad_creative_check by naming the regulator and 'full audit' scope.

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 'full VARA Dubai marketing self-audit' implies use for VARA compliance checks, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like run_ad_creative_check or other regulator-specific tools. Sibling names signal alternatives, but no active guidance is provided.

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