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

The no-credit guarantee is useful non-obvious context beyond the annotations. However, with readOnlyHint=false the agent cannot tell whether preflight persists state, and the description says nothing about what is checked, what failure modes exist, or whether results are cached.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

For a tool taking a large nested audit contract with no output schema, the description omits what constitutes a valid upload, what the validation covers, and what the caller receives back. Far too thin for the complexity.

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% and the contract object carries ~25 nested fields, yet the description only gestures at 'baseline evidence/row identity' and says nothing about upload_id format, the vertical enum, or which contract fields are validated.

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 (Validate) and resource (a tenant-private upload plus its baseline evidence/row identity), which distinguishes it from submit_audit and quote_audit. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'without spending a credit' implies this is a cheap pre-check to run before a paid audit, but the description never states when to call it versus submit_audit or quote_audit, nor what a failing preflight means for the next step.

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