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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that async:true is required to avoid timeout errors and that the tool returns structured reports with warnings and source references. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, target audience, inputs, output, and async requirement are covered in three sentences without redundancy. Each sentence adds essential information.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, output schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's inputs, outputs, async requirement, and target use case. It could explicitly mention edge cases or exclusions, but that is not critical for a read-only audit tool with a rich output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool accepts either domain lists or network identifiers, and by explicitly recommending the async parameter. It does not detail checkESG and checkGDPR, but those are already well-described in the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: auditing retail media networks for ESG compliance through ad placements, tracking cookies, and ethical advertising standards. It distinguishes itself from sibling ESG tools like esg_audit_multi by specifying the retail media network focus and the specific compliance targets (GDPR, sustainability).

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 provides clear context: designed for ad_revenue_ops teams and digital retail platforms. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the target audience and use case are well defined, which is sufficient for a read-only audit tool.

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