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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, lowering the burden. The description goes well beyond by revealing the markdown report format, the Achilles 10-stage structure, the score range, finding severities, actionable fixes, the prerequisite that the audit must be complete, and the free vs. Pass quota difference. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return contents, then adds prerequisite and quota context. It is reasonably concise, but the 'When to use' sentence is filler that merely restates the tool's purpose, and 'safer read-only route' is imprecise.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what the report contains, the prerequisite status check, quota implications, and where the audit_id comes from (via the schema). No missing information would prevent correct invocation.

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% for the single required audit_id parameter, including provenance ('returned by ghost_audit_site'). The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the full markdown report for a completed Ghost Audit.' It then details the exact contents (0-100 score, severity findings, stage-by-stage analysis, fixes), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling status-checker ghost_audit_status and the site-initiating ghost_audit_site.

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 explicitly says to call ghost_audit_status first to confirm completionainer and includes 'When to use' and 'When not to use' sections. However, the 'When to use' clause is somewhat circular ('when the user's request matches this capability'), and the 'safer read-only route' alternative is named vaguely rather than specifying a sibling tool.

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