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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces them by saying 'never edits or pushes' while adding that data comes from the 'live public listing.' It also discloses the output shape (severity + impact, summary), which is useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences; purpose, output, source, and safety are all front-loaded. The repetition of 'read-only' is minor and reinforces the no-mutation guarantee.

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 lack of an output schema means the description's mention of findings and summary is helpful, and the parameter and read-only story is complete. But it omits explicit platform/storefront scope, which is important given the sibling audit_play_app, and offers no behavior on edge cases like failed resolution.

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%, with meaningful descriptions for query, country, and bundleId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 names a concrete operation ('listing audit') and the deliverable ('prioritized findings ... plus a summary'), and explicitly marks it read-only. However, it calls the target a generic 'listing' and doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling audit_play_app, so an agent may confuse the two storefronts.

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 read-only framing implies it is for inspection rather than modification, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as audit_play_app or propose_copy. The 'never edits or pushes' note gives context but not clear selection criteria.

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