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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'this tool never changes anything' and adds that findings come from a scheduled scan. It also lists the concrete finding categories, giving the caller a solid expectation of content beyond the safety flags.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the read-only scope and followed by a detailed but purposeful enumeration of finding types and usage guidance. The list is long but earns its place since every item is a distinct finding category.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description conveys what kinds of findings will appear and that the tool is non-mutating; the two optional parameters are fully described in the schema. Pagination or return-format details are absent, but for a simple audit read this is adequate.

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%: agency_id and include_resolved each have clear descriptions, so the schema already documents the parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 'Read-only view of Tango's configuration audit for an organization' – a specific verb, resource, and scope – and then enumerates the audit categories. This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling mutating security tools like rotate_worker_key or clear_webhook, even though it doesn't name them.

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?

It explicitly frames usage: 'Use it to check and correct your own posture,' with concrete examples like noticing a key should be rotated or scope is too broad. It does not state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the read-only framing implies that remediation actions are separate.

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