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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'least-privilege preset' comparison concept, but doesn't disclose what the audit actually returns (violations list? per-user matrix?) or how results are scoped when locationId is absent. With annotations carrying safety, this lands at an adequate 3.

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 sentences: the purpose first, then a compact example call. Nothing is padded, and the key scope information is front-loaded before the example.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what an audit returns — and it doesn't. Combined with both parameters being optional and no statement about default scoping (all locations? default preset?), an agent can call it but can't predict the result shape.

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% and the enum is documented in the schema, so the description need only match that baseline. The inline example usefully shows both parameters together in a realistic call, but it doesn't explain the semantics of omitting either parameter — the main ambiguity an agent would hit.

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+resource: a read-only audit of sub-account staff permissions against named least-privilege presets (va-support, sales-rep, client-admin, agency-admin). The enumerated presets make the scope concrete. It doesn't differentiate itself from the other 'audit' siblings (ghl_custom_values_audit, ghl_phone_wallet_audit, ghl_snapshot_diff_audit), though the resources are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 inline example shows how to call it for one location/preset combination, which implies usage. But there's no guidance on when to choose this over other audit tools, no prerequisites (which scopes or plan tier are needed), and no statement about what happens when preset or locationId is omitted — notably both are optional with an empty required list.

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