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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is the entitlement constraint ('Paid plans') and the fact that the tool returns a link rather than inline data — both genuinely useful for planning a call. It omits link lifetime/expiry and what happens on an unpaid plan, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight fragments with the payload described first and the entitlement constraint second; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent needs, but as a structural matter it is well front-loaded and waste-free.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the plan requirement but leaves run_id semantics, link expiry, and failure behavior undocumented. Adequate to attempt a call, not complete enough to call it confidently.

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?

There is one required parameter, run_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no indication of where a run_id comes from (presumably run_audit) or what scoping it applies. With the schema carrying no documentation, the description fails to compensate for the gap.

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 names the concrete artifact returned — a download link for the 'evidence workbook' containing every check, URL and raw evidence — which lets an agent distinguish it from get_findings (summarized results) and get_fix_pack (remediation). It stops short of an explicit verb+resource framing or a direct sibling callout, so it sits at a clear 4 rather than 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?

'Paid plans' signals an entitlement precondition and the parenthetical implies the use case (wanting raw evidence rather than findings). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as get_findings for agents that only need summarized results.

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