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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them — that the call kicks off an asynchronous job returning an audit_id that must be polled with get_audit and wait:25. It does not restate the safety profile, so it complements rather than repeats the 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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the required precondition and then the downstream workflow. No filler, though the mix of prerequisite, exclusion, and follow-up steps in one sentence makes it slightly dense to parse at a glance.

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 still names the return value (audit_id) and the exact follow-up calls needed to retrieve the result, and it states the boundary against build/design tools. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke and continue the workflow correctly is missing.

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 both url and context are already fully documented in the schema, including the 500-character limit and the 'pass what they already told you' guidance. The description's line 'Pass campaign context already supplied' reinforces, but does not extend, the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (start a landing-page audit) and explicitly scopes out adjacent work with 'Does not design or build a page,' which distinguishes it from build_page and publish_page. An agent can tell what this tool does and does not do without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly sequences prerequisites and alternatives: authorise price via check_balance first, search for existing work when the request concerns a prior audit, then get_audit with wait:25, then run_cro_skill for the deliverable. This is a full when-to-use and what-to-use-instead map.

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