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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral substance beyond them: it enumerates what the response contains (program detail, dollars expended, major-program flag, opinion type, auditor firm, findings) and states an explicit exclusion (named-individual contact details). It does not mention auth or rate limits, keeping it at a 4.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core action (fetch one audit by report_id) before the enrichment and exclusion details. It is efficient, though the long run-on enumeration of returned fields is slightly heavy.

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 must carry return-value burden, and it does: it lists the returned fields, the enrichment scope, and an explicit non-returned field. It stops short of describing pagination/ordering behavior for the award rows governed by award_limit, leaving a minor gap.

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%, so report_id, award_limit and include_findings are already documented in the schema, including the id format and defaults. The description adds little parameter-specific syntax beyond implying that program detail and findings are returned (related to award_limit/include_findings), so the 3 baseline applies.

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 and resource: 'Fetch one single audit by its FAC report_id', with a concrete id example. The scope ('one single audit', keyed by report_id) cleanly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like fac_search_audits and from fac_audit_findings.

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?

Establishes the retrieval context (single record looked up by an id that comes from fac_search_audits, per the schema) and explicitly redirects one need elsewhere: contact details are not here, use the summary_url on fac.gov. It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly name or exclude sibling tools such as fac_audit_findings or fac_federal_awards_by_program.

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