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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: 'Read tier,' default summary-only behavior, the effect of full=true, the 12000-char cap on the complete JSON, and the fact that a computed summary is returned first. These details significantly help an agent anticipate response size and shape without an output schema.

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?

The description is dense but every clause contributes: scope, contents, summary-first behavior, full mode, size cap, read tier, and notification uniqueness. The main purpose and identifier are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition within the description itself.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent will receive, and it does so thoroughly: it lists all report sections, the computed summary fields, the full-JSON option, the size cap, and the root_id resolution path. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly even without knowing the exact JSON keys.

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 100%, so the schema already documents full and root_id well. The description reinforces the same semantics, including the root_id provenance and the full=true behavior, but does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb-plus-resource framing: 'audit report of one coordination cycle by its root task id' and enumerates the exact contents (tasks, runs, completions, verdicts, decisions, ledger events, hash-chain verdicts, spend). It clearly differentiates this from general report/list tools by scoping it to a single cycle and calling it 'the ONLY per-cycle notification surface.'

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a per-cycle audit report or notification surface is needed. It also provides concrete invocation guidance for root_id: 'returned by tascan_create_cycle; a non-root cycle task returns its root_id in the error.' It lacks an explicit named alternative or when-not-to-use statement, but the 'ONLY per-cycle notification surface' claim effectively rules out sibling notification tools.

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