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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them, adding real value on top: the file stays in the browser and is never sent to the server, and the measurement is performed client-side by measure.py. It stops short of saying what happens on failure or whether the panel state persists between calls.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the two modes, then the privacy note — a sensible order with no filler. The long enumerated list of profile fields in the middle is dense and slightly run-on, but it is load-bearing because there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, describing the returned profile (column kind, empty cells, distinct values, category counts, ranges, first rows) is exactly the right compensation, and the privacy statement covers the biggest behavioural question for a file-reading tool. Missing only the explicit handoff from start_audit and any error-path behaviour.

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 both parameters are documented there, including the 'leave it out' semantics of spec, so the schema already carries the load. The description adds the useful consequence of supplying an unconfirmed vs. confirmed spec and implies the columns parameter's checking role only indirectly.

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 and resource ("Opens the audit panel in the chat") and then splits the behaviour into two named modes (no spec vs. a confirmed spec). An agent can picture the action, but the description never names its siblings (start_audit, show_audit, prepare_script), so the distinction from those requires inference.

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 when-to-use logic is clear: omit spec to open the panel and receive the file, pass a confirmed spec to run the measurement. What is missing is routing against alternatives — the dependency on start_audit appears only in the schema's spec description, not in the tool description, and no exclusion against show_audit is given.

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