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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the output includes violated/failed/skipped verdicts, breaches, and injury reports cross-referenced to the worker's last PPE checkpoint. It also clarifies output equivalence to the Evidence Pack. No contradiction with 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by output contents, scoping options, and a reference to the Evidence Pack. Every sentence earns its place.

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, but the description enumerates the key returned data categories and ties them to the printable Evidence Pack, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will get. It does not mention pagination or default date-range behavior, but with all parameters optional and read-only annotations, the definition is still reasonably complete.

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 only 40%, with zone_id, worker_id, and project_id undocumented. The description compensates by grouping all five parameters into meaningful scoping terms: project or zone, worker, and date range. It adds optionality and range semantics not present in the schema, though it does not explain behavior when multiple scope filters are combined.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('compliance audit') and enumerates the exact contents: zone crossings, PPE checkpoint verdicts, breaches, and cross-referenced injury reports. This clearly distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like tascan_list_zones or tascan_get_scan_history.

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?

It provides a clear use context ('OSHA / insurance' audits, 'printable Evidence Pack') and explains the scoping options ('by project or zone, optionally by worker and date range'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use is clear enough to guide selection.

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