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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a comparative re-audit producing resolved/still-open/new blockers, which is useful context, but it does not disclose probe rate limits, what happens if the previous receipt is malformed, or any auth requirements.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return shape, closing with the usage condition. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant.

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 an output schema present the description needn't detail return values, yet it usefully names the three blocker categories. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema documents all params, so the definition is largely self-sufficient; only the undefined 'ACR' term and absent sibling routing leave minor gaps.

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%, so all three parameters including the nested previous object are documented in the schema. The description adds no format or usage detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (re-audit) and resource (a storefront after changes) plus the comparative action against a prior ACR receipt. It implicitly separates itself from audit_agent_commerce_readiness (a fresh audit) but never names the sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

"Use in audit-fix-rerun coding loops" gives clear contextual usage and the comparison framing implies the prerequisite of a prior receipt. However it names no alternative tool and states no when-not condition, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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