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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world operation, so the behavioral bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it audits six upstream routes for specific failure classes and warns that successful completion should not be read as a freshness verdict.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core audit action and followed by a critical interpretation caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in the description. The description adequately covers what the tool audits and a key semantic caveat, though it could be more complete by stating when to choose this tool over the many financial_evidence_* siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to supplement. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and nothing in the description contradicts or complicates the empty schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('all six upstream routes'), and names the exact checks performed: transport errors, publisher clocks, and content hashes. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as financial_evidence_route or financial_evidence_query.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many financial_evidence_* sibling tools. The sentence 'Success is not a freshness verdict' is an interpretive caveat, not usage direction.

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