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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output includes score and issue counts, but does not explain thresholds, read-only nature, failure modes, or how the trace is processed. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core verdict, followed by the use case. Every word earns its place with zero filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite a simple schema, the lack of an output schema and annotations places the burden on the description to explain return values and side effects. It only hints at score/issue counts, leaving the verdict values, evaluation criteria, and CI-specific behavior unspecified.

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 only 50%, with budget_usd lacking any description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, leaving budget_usd's purpose completely unclear. It fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 produces a pass/review/block verdict with score and issue counts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_trace and diff_traces that focus on tracing and comparison. The verb is implied but the resource and output are specific.

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?

It explicitly recommends use in CI gates, providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the CI gate use case is specific enough to guide an agent.

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