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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with this being a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds the cost '8 MESH/call' and indicates it produces an audit report, but the '[unverified]' placeholders leave key behavioral details unclear, and it does not disclose potential side effects or external interactions beyond what annotations imply.

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 long, cluttered sentence with repeated '[unverified]' placeholders and an odd trailing parenthetical '(8 MESH/call, a tool · audit)'. The structure is messy and not front-loaded; the core purpose is buried among placeholder text. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values, but it only vaguely mentions a report and risk map with an incomplete '[unverified]'. The input schema is generic and the description does not clarify what input to provide. Given the tool's complexity (a third-party audit), the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema has one parameter 'input' with a description, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The schema's description is generic ('Capability-specific payload') and includes examples for other tools, but it does not specify what the payload should be for this audit tool. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema remains the primary source.

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 the action ('Performs an independent third-party audit') and targets ('system architecture, workflows, and compliance posture'), and mentions deliverables (audit report, risk map). However, it is undermined by '[unverified]' placeholders that obscure the alignment standard and final output item, and it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'biz-analyze'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It simply states what it does without contextualizing its appropriate use cases.

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