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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it is a read of stored results, it will not trigger new measurement, and output is ordered with verified regressions first. It stops short of saying what happens for sites with no completed audit.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the core scope and the 'stored results only' constraint come first, and routing guidance follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers scope, ranking order, and alternative tools. Safety traits are handled by annotations, so nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema imposes no documentation burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no words on parameter syntax and instead covers scope and alternatives.

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?

States a specific verb ('Review') plus the exact resource and scope ('the latest completed audit for every site') and adds a ranking behavior ('rank verified regressions first'). An agent can distinguish it from get_audit_report or get_audit_history without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly bounds usage with 'Uses stored results only; it does not start new audits', then names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: run_audit for re-measuring a saved site, audit_url for a one-off URL check. This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern done properly.

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