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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions cost and describes the output content, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, what inputs it requires beyond a claim, or any rate/auth constraints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the cost, and every clause adds meaningful information about the audit's output. It is slightly cryptic, particularly 'what to run,' but has no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter documentation, the description is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It lacks usage conditions, evidence semantics, and any statement about side effects or return structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It references the claim parameter but completely ignores the evidence parameter, and it does not explain expected formats, defaults, or how claim and evidence relate.

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 identifies an audit operation over a claim and enumerates concrete output components: why each tripped check matters, the incident with measured numbers, and what to run. It is specific about the resource and deliverable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings by name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use audit versus siblings like precheck, research, or search. The description says what the tool does but not the conditions or prerequisites that should trigger this tool over alternatives.

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