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 covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no scope of what the audit scans, no mention that results are advisory — so it neither extends nor contradicts the annotations.

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, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the date semantics following. The 'DATE:' prefix is a slightly dense shorthand but keeps it compact.

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 need not be described. However, for a 3-parameter audit tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits the required customer_id and any guidance on choosing this audit over sibling audits, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully explains that 'period' overrides 'days', that days=0 means today, and gives example date formats, but 'customer_id' (the sole required parameter) is never mentioned and 'period' enum values are only hinted with '…'.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Account hygiene audit') and names what it surfaces ('wasteful keywords and low Quality Score'), so an agent knows it is a diagnostic read. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like instant_audit or keyword_quality_report, leaving the agent to guess which audit to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives, despite several audit-shaped siblings (instant_audit, seo_audit, keyword_quality_report). The only context is implicit in the phrase 'account hygiene audit'.

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