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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the output shape and ordering ('worst first', what's expected, the first step, a paste-ready AI prompt), which matters because no output schema exists. It omits edge cases such as behavior when no audit has run or how many findings are returned, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core payload ('latest audit's scores and what needs fixing, worst first') followed by an efficient enumeration of the fields returned. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema, richly annotated read tool, the description covers the essential contract: what comes back and in what order. It would be fully complete with a note on what happens when no audit exists and roughly how many findings to expect.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage (website id or domain, with an example and a pointer to list_websites). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema fully documents it.

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 specifically what is returned: the latest site audit's scores plus remediation items, ordered worst-first, including finding, expectation, first step, and an AI prompt. The verb+resource is clear ('get latest site audit findings'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no sibling covers site audits, so disambiguation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'the latest site audit' — an agent can infer this is for reviewing current audit results — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an audit must have run), and no pointer to alternatives for historical audits or individual checks.

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