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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds that the status is 'privacy-filtered' and that an access token is required, providing some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any further behavioral traits (e.g., what 'privacy-filtered' means, how the token is used, or potential errors). Given the annotation coverage, the description adds moderate value, earning a 3.

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 two concise sentences with no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second states a critical prerequisite. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. Score 5 for maximum conciseness.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not detailed here, but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool has two required parameters and lacks explanation for the 'id' parameter, which is crucial for invocation. The sibling context (e.g., 'audit_url') is partially addressed via the prerequisite, but the overall completeness is moderate. Score 3 reflects the gap in describing the 'id' parameter.

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 two required parameters with no descriptions (schema coverage 0%). The description only explains the 'accessToken' parameter's source ('returned by audit_url') but does not clarify the 'id' parameter (likely an audit identifier). This provides partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions, but still leaves one parameter unexplained, resulting in a score of 2.

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 that the tool returns the 'privacy-filtered status of an audit', specifying the resource and action (get status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_audit' or 'start_paid_audit', but could explicitly contrast with 'list_checks' for completeness. The verb and resource are specific enough for a 4.

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 description mentions a prerequisite ('The access token returned by audit_url is required'), which gives some context for when to use this tool (after obtaining the token). However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it, nor does it reference alternative sibling tools (e.g., when to use 'list_checks' instead). This lack of comparative usage guidance limits the score to 2.

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