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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only audit and discloses a $0.01 cost, but it does not explain side effects, authorization needs, or whether the tool returns a report, passes/fails, or aggregate data.

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 highly compact and front-loaded with the resource and domain. There is no filler, but the compression creates jargon-heavy phrasing that may obscure meaning.

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 tool with a nested required spec, a nullable agent_id, and a paid chain aggregate, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify how to construct 'spec', when to pass 'agent_id', or what the audit output represents, leaving a capable agent without enough context to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the required 'spec' object or the optional 'agent_id' parameter. Terms like 'monotone caps' and 'per-hop expiry' hint at domain content, but there is no explicit mapping to the parameters, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 specific resource (multi-robot delegation contracts) and the core audit concerns (monotone caps, per-hop expiry/revocation), which distinguishes it from sibling audits like robot_geo_fence_audit and robot_fleet_quota_audit. However, it does not state what the audit returns, and 'chain aggregate' is ambiguous.

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 the many sibling audit tools. There is no decision rule, exclusions, or mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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