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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the audit's scope (the four dimensions checked) and a $0.01 cost, both of which are genuine facts not present in structured data. However, it never reveals side effects, whether anything is mutated, the shape of the result, or failure modes — notable gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by four scope dimensions and the cost. Zero waste — purpose, audit dimensions, and the fee are all packed efficiently. Ideal conciseness with no filler.

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 are covered elsewhere. But the tool is complex (multi-dimensional audit fed by a free-form nested spec), and the input format is genuinely undefined: the description lists the dimensions without explaining how they map into the spec object. An agent would struggle to construct a valid `spec` without additional documentation.

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 required `spec` parameter is a completely opaque free-form object (additionalProperties: true, no description). The description partially compensates by implying the spec should carry geofence, vertical bounds, outdoor scoping, and speed-cap data. But it never specifies their format (coordinate system, units, bound structure), so the spec shape remains guesswork.

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?

Names a specific verb (audit) and resource (physical/geographic authority) and lists the concrete scope dimensions: geofence, vertical bounds, outdoor scoping, speed cap. This distinguishes it from sibling audits like ddg_robot_delegation_chain_audit and ddg_robot_fleet_quota_audit, since this is clearly the geographic variant of the robot audit family. Slightly cryptic phrasing ('authority audit') costs it a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never states which situations call for this audit over ddg_robot_delegation_chain_audit, ddg_checkout_conformance, or ddg_data_query, and mentions no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is only implicit in the name and the listed scope fields.

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